Two cases today.
First, in United States v. Estrada, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-50439 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court affirmed the district court’s order denying a wiretap suppression motion.
The Court held the wiretap was permissible -- i.e., necessary -- even though the government had access to a high-level confidential informant. The decision is another reminder that the "necessity" requirement is mostly a platitude.
Second, in United States v. Lawrence, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-30061 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court certified the following questions to the Oregon Supreme Court.
1. Is Oregon first-degree robbery, Or. Rev.
Stat. § 164.415, divisible?
2. Is Oregon second-degree robbery, id.
§ 164.405, divisible?
3. Put another way, is jury unanimity (or
concurrence) required as to a particular
theory chosen from the listed subparagraphs
of each statute?
