Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

An individual pleaded guilty to twelve felony counts, including threatening members of Congress and their families and transmitting those threats via interstate communication. The sentencing guidelines recommended a prison term of 33 to 41 months based on the offense level and criminal history. Although the guidelines did not permit probation, the court imposed a five-year probation term, as urged by all parties, with special conditions, including monitored communications and a prohibition on making further threats. Within days, the defendant violated probation by sending another threatening message to a former federal official, prompting the probation office to seek revocation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a revocation hearing, revoked probation, and resentenced the defendant. The court referenced both Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, ultimately imposing a 36-month prison sentence based on the Chapter 5 range. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by not starting with Chapter 7’s recommended range for probation violations. Initially, the appellate panel affirmed the sentence, interpreting prior circuit precedent, United States v. Moore (Moore I), as not requiring the district court to identify an alternative sentence at the original sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed whether Moore I’s two-step sentencing process—first considering the underlying offense under Chapter 5 and then the probation violation under Chapter 7—was correct. The court held that after revoking probation, the sentencing court must take Chapter 7’s recommended range as its starting point, and only consider Chapter 5’s range when deciding whether to vary from Chapter 7’s recommendation. Because the district court did not follow this process, the Tenth Circuit reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Seals" on Justia Law

A police officer in Puerto Rico was convicted after accepting a bribe from a woman he had arrested for marijuana possession. The officer promised to help the woman avoid a criminal conviction in exchange for sex. The woman, a young assistant nurse studying to become a full-time nurse, feared that a conviction would jeopardize her career. After her arrest, she met with the officer, who suggested that he could get her case dismissed if she provided sexual favors. She agreed, and they had sex, but the officer did not deliver on his promise. The woman subsequently faced multiple court appearances, hired a private attorney, and ultimately pleaded guilty, incurring various costs and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the trial, during which the jury convicted the officer of violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), which prohibits government officials from accepting bribes in connection with business or transactions involving $5,000 or more. The defendant moved for acquittal, arguing that the government failed to prove the value of the "business" or "transaction" exceeded $5,000. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the $5,000 threshold and an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to statements by the prosecution during closing argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the value of avoiding a criminal conviction—considering the woman’s career prospects, legal expenses, fines, and her own testimony—exceeded $5,000. The court also found no clear or obvious error in the prosecution’s closing argument regarding the defendant’s decision not to testify. The conviction was affirmed. View "US v. Velez-Ramirez" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted in the 1990s for bank and armored car robberies committed with a group that included Anthony Shea. These crimes involved frequent use of firearms, and in one particularly violent incident, two armored car guards were killed execution-style. The convictions included armed bank robbery, carjacking, Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy, gun possession by a felon or drug user, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The trial judge instructed the jury that several offenses were “crimes of violence” for the gun-use charge, but the verdict form did not specify which predicate offense the jury relied upon.Following his conviction, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire sentenced him to life imprisonment, applying enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on prior convictions. After the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States struck down ACCA’s residual clause, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed the appellant to file a successive habeas petition. The district court subsequently vacated the ACCA-enhanced sentence and imposed a lower term, but declined to grant a full resentencing or to vacate the § 924(c) conviction, reasoning that the jury instruction error was harmless because valid predicate offenses remained.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of § 2255 relief de novo and for harmless error. It held that the district court's reliance on the harmless-error standard was correct and that the error in instructing on an invalid predicate offense did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict, given the interrelated and coextensive nature of the valid and invalid predicates. The court further held that the appellant was not entitled to a certificate of appealability or to a full resentencing, as no substantial constitutional claim was raised regarding the district court’s choice of remedy. The judgment was affirmed and the request for a certificate of appealability denied. View "McDonald v. US" on Justia Law

The case concerns Michael C. Hoffpowier, who was investigated after his estranged wife, B.H., reported to law enforcement that he had scheduled an appointment at her workplace under a false name and had a history of harassing her across multiple states. Officers responding to the scene located Hoffpowier’s vehicle in a nearby parking lot. Upon approaching, they observed behavior they interpreted as a potential flight risk, including the vehicle being put in reverse. Hoffpowier was handcuffed after failing to comply with commands to approach an officer. While detained, officers reviewed text messages between Hoffpowier and B.H. and, with his consent, observed binoculars and a gun magazine in his vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed firearms and a silencer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Hoffpowier’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, concluding that the handcuffing did not constitute an arrest and that there was a reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contained evidence related to stalking. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny suppression was adopted after Hoffpowier’s objections were overruled, in part because he did not update his arguments in light of the report’s analysis. Hoffpowier subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered silencer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the officers’ use of handcuffs during the investigatory stop was reasonable given the circumstances and did not convert the stop into an arrest. It further held that the presence of binoculars visible in the vehicle provided a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle contained evidence pertinent to the stalking offense, justifying the warrantless search under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. View "United States v. Hoffpowier" on Justia Law

Reginald Smith, previously convicted of multiple cocaine-related felonies in Florida state court, was arrested in December 2019 after officers investigating illegal hunting found him holding a loaded shotgun. During a search, officers discovered additional ammunition, a hunting knife, and MDMA pills. An agent determined that Smith’s shotgun had traveled in interstate commerce, having been manufactured outside Florida. Smith, as a result, was indicted for possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession of MDMA under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). He pleaded guilty to both counts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed Smith’s prior convictions to determine whether they triggered the mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The court considered evolving precedent—including United States v. Conage and United States v. Jackson—regarding whether certain Florida drug crimes qualified as “serious drug offenses” under ACCA. After law developments clarified that Smith’s two 1993 convictions for selling cocaine and his 2001 conviction for trafficking cocaine were ACCA predicates under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court applied the ACCA enhancement. Smith was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment for the firearm count and 12 months for MDMA possession, to run concurrently. Smith objected to the ACCA enhancement but acknowledged its applicability under current circuit law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Smith’s conviction and sentence. The court held that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment or Commerce Clause, Smith invited any error regarding ACCA classification of his convictions, the district court’s error under Erlinger v. United States did not affect Smith’s substantial rights, and any error in calculating his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was harmless. View "USA v. Smith" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement intercepted thousands of phone calls between April and June 2021, some of which involved the defendant discussing marijuana and firearm transactions. In April 2022, following a traffic stop, officers detected a strong marijuana odor and, after a brief struggle, arrested the defendant. A search of his vehicle uncovered firearms, large quantities of marijuana, codeine, and cash. The next day, a Glock switch was found in the patrol car where the defendant had been held. He was initially charged in May 2022 by indictment for offenses relating to this incident and later indicted again with 34 codefendants in a broader drug conspiracy case in November 2022.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment grounds. The trial jury convicted him on several counts, including conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and use of a communications facility in furtherance of a drug crime. He was acquitted on others, including possession of a machinegun. The district court sentenced him to a total of 150 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed challenges to the indictment’s timeliness, evidentiary rulings admitting certain rap lyrics, and the reasonableness of the sentence. The court held that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment, finding that necessary continuances were justified and adequately explained. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited rap lyric evidence, nor did it err in its application of sentencing enhancements or in declining a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court affirmed the convictions and the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Gladney" on Justia Law

The case concerns Cesar Gomez Almonte, who was convicted for his role in an international drug-smuggling conspiracy. Beginning in 2016, conspirators based in the Dominican Republic transported large quantities of cocaine into the United States using boats with secret compartments. Almonte was responsible for procuring and outfitting these vessels. After U.S. officials became aware of the operation, Almonte was indicted under seal in Washington, D.C., and later arrested during a layover at Miami International Airport.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw Almonte’s trial, during which a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine and sentenced him to 184 months in prison. Almonte raised several constitutional claims on appeal: he argued that the 18-month delay between his indictment and arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, that venue in D.C. was improper under Article III and 18 U.S.C. § 3238, and that the district court’s refusal to grant a new trial after certain jurors expressed concerns about his counsel denied him an impartial jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed these claims. The court held that the delay between indictment and arrest did not violate Almonte’s right to a speedy trial, given the government’s good-faith investigative reasons and his failure to show specific prejudice. On venue, the court found that Almonte waived his only meritorious venue argument regarding the Eastern District of Virginia by not raising it when invited, and his other arguments about venue in Florida were either without merit or forfeited. Regarding juror impartiality, the court concluded that the district court handled the matter appropriately through voir dire and did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial or new trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Almonte" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in 2019 of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder for the 1988 killings of two victims, after a cold case investigation identified him through DNA and fingerprint evidence. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on DNA and fingerprint matches, as well as eyewitness testimony placing him with the victims near the time of their deaths. The defendant was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.Before sentencing, the defendant filed a petition in the Wyandotte District Court seeking postconviction DNA testing of evidence under K.S.A. 21-2512, which the district court denied, finding he had not alleged that new or more accurate testing techniques were available. The defendant did not appeal this denial. In 2021, he filed a second petition, this time requesting retesting of previously tested items using “touch DNA” methods and testing several additional items. The district court summarily denied this petition as well, concluding he had not shown that touch DNA techniques would yield more accurate or probative results, and that even if retesting were possible, it would not produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence indicating wrongful conviction. The court’s decision predated the Kansas Supreme Court’s guidance in State v. Angelo.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the appeal. The court held that the second petition was not barred by res judicata because it raised new claims regarding new testing technology and previously untested items. However, the court affirmed the district court’s denial. It ruled that the defendant failed to sufficiently allege that new DNA testing techniques would likely yield more accurate or probative results for previously tested items. For the newly identified items, the court found that testing could not produce exculpatory evidence relevant to the defendant’s claim of wrongful conviction. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Shields " on Justia Law

A woman fired multiple shots at vehicles after being involved in two separate fistfights outside a nightclub in Wichita, Kansas. During the incident, a nineteen-year-old was shot and killed. The shooter claimed self-defense, stating she believed the other group intended to harm her following the altercations. Several witnesses testified regarding the events preceding the shooting, including video evidence and accounts of the physical confrontations and the moments when the shots were fired.The Sedgwick District Court oversaw the trial, where the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm. The trial court admitted certain hearsay statements under the excited utterance exception and excluded a defense exhibit comparing the defendant’s actions to police use of force in another case. The court also denied requests for jury instructions on imperfect self-defense and lesser included offenses related to the attempted murder charge, finding them legally inappropriate or unrequested.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the appeal. It held that factual findings supporting the admission of a hearsay statement are reviewed for substantial evidence. The court affirmed that when the underlying felony for felony murder is criminal discharge of a firearm, only pure self-defense—not imperfect self-defense—is available as a defense and must be instructed upon. Imperfect self-defense is not legally appropriate. Additionally, it clarified that, when considering the factual appropriateness of a jury instruction, facts are construed in the light most favorable to the requesting party, even if the instruction was not requested at trial. The court found no reversible error and affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Banks " on Justia Law

Three individuals—Shannon Berry Cavitt Jr., Caviontay Conway, and Robert “Nice” White—conspired to rob Dennis Haynes, a known drug dealer in Wichita, Kansas. Cavitt provided information about Haynes and acted as a decoy to facilitate entry into Haynes’ apartment. On the night in question, Cavitt gained access to the apartment, followed closely by Conway and White, who were armed. During the attempted robbery, White shot and killed Haynes. Multiple individuals present in the apartment were confined and threatened during the incident.After the incident, the Sedgwick District Court jury found Cavitt guilty of felony murder based on aggravated robbery, four counts of kidnapping (involving four individuals), and one count of aggravated burglary. However, the jury acquitted him on a separate count of aggravated robbery and a second count of felony murder based on aggravated burglary. Cavitt appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, especially given the jury’s acquittals on some related charges.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that sufficiency of the evidence for a felony murder conviction remains the same even if the jury acquits on the underlying felony, as the verdict could be based on an attempt rather than a completed crime. The court also clarified that kidnapping under Kansas law only requires taking or confining by force, threat, or deception with the requisite intent, and expressly overruled State v. Buggs, which had imposed additional requirements for kidnapping associated with another crime. The court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supported all convictions and affirmed the judgment of the Sedgwick District Court. View "State v. Cavitt " on Justia Law