Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The government alleged Defendant-Appellant Richard Clark, along with other co-conspirators, manipulated shares of several penny-stocks by using false and backdated documents to make those shares publically tradable, then coordinated the trading among themselves to create the false appearance of an active market for those shares. The shares were sold after the prices surged. The conspirators laundered the proceeds through multiple bank accounts and nominees (a "pump-and-dump" scheme). Defendant was charged and convicted on multiple counts for his participation in the scheme. He appealed his conviction to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the pretrial placement of a caveat on his property violated his constitutional rights; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the district court erred in refusing to appoint additional or substitute counsel better versed in complex securities issues; (4) the district court erred by failing to sever his case from his co-conspirator's; and (5) his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by a fourteen-month delay between filing of the indictment and the start of trial. The Tenth Circuit addressed each of Defendant's contentions in its opinion, but found no discernible error. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendants Randy Dyke and Don Steele were caught in a government undercover sting operation and charged with drug, forgery and counterfeiting charges. A jury rejected their entrapment defense. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendants argued (among other things) that the charges against them should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been dismissed as a matter of law because the undercover operation amounted to "outrageous governmental conduct." After a lengthy analysis, the Court declined to adopt other circuits' use of an "outrageous governmental conduct" standard, concluding that defendants failed to persuade the Court that they might prevail under any of the tests suggested by the case law. Defendants argued in the alternative that they were entrapped, the evidence presented against them was insufficient to support the charges against them, and that the trial court erred in calculating their sentences. Finding no entrapment, that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, and no error in their sentences, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dyke" on Justia Law

Defendant Fabian Dunbar pled guilty to distributing cocaine, for which he received a 48-month prison sentence pursuant to a plea agreement. The agreement also stated the parties would recommend defendant receive a 12-month consecutive sentence for violating a term of supervised release from a 2006 sentence. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendant argued: (1) the district court conducted an inadequate inquiry into his request for new counsel (and abused its discretion by denying that request); (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his pro se requests to withdraw the plea agreement; (3) the plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily (because counsel gave him inaccurate information); and (4) his sentence regarding supervised release was unreasonable. Finding no merit to any of defendant's four claims of error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Magnan pled guilty to three county of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction, and to life for the shooting. In his application for habeas relief to the district court, Petitioner argued that his crimes took place in "Indian country," and that as a result, the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that a 1970 conveyance of property from the Seminole Nation to the federal Housing Authority extinguished any "Indian Country" designation; even assuming that the Seminole Nation retained some rights to the property in question, those rights were insufficient to deprive the State of criminal jurisdiction. The district court denied the writ application but granted a certificate of appealability. After its review of the case, the Tenth Circuit concluded that conveyance of the surface estate to the land in which the crimes took place were insufficient to extinguish Seminole Nation control over it. Therefore, the land in question was indeed "Indian Country" and therefore the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case with instructions to grant Petitioner habeas relief. View "Magnan v. Workman, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Siale Angilau was indicted by a Utah grand jury for the shooting deaths of two deputy U.S. Marshals. One count charged racketeering conspiracy; assaulting a federal officer, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the three shooting-related charges as barred by Double Jeopardy, because those charges had been dismissed in his federal prosecution. The court granted the motion as to the assault count, but denied as to the firearms counts. Defendant appealed that ruling while his case was pending trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear defendant's double-jeopardy claim, but lacked jurisdiction for any others still pending. The Court concluded there was no merit to defendant's double jeopardy claim, and neither firearms charges were barred by collateral estoppel because the prior dismissal of those charges did not resolve any element of the charges in his favor. View "United States v. Angilau" on Justia Law

Defendant Rebecca Christie was convicted for second-degree murder and child abuse for the death of her infant daughter. Defendant was an avid player of "World of Warcraft," often engaging gameplay for hours and hours on end. As the Tenth Circuit noted, the neglect of the child wasn't fatal if Defendant's husband was around to provide care. When the husband left for an out-of-state deployment, nine days later the child died from dehydration. Defendant raised multiple issues on appeal, implicating her Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. After its review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding no violations of Defendant's constitutional rights, or errors entitling her to dismissal of her convictions. View "United States v. Christie" on Justia Law

Shengyahg Zhou pled guilty to trafficking and attempted trafficking of counterfeit goods. He was sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison, three years' supervised release and to pay restitution. Zhou contended the district court made multiple errors in arriving at his sentence. Finding no errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Zhou" on Justia Law

Officer Shane Prickett of the Florence City Police Department used a Taser on Petitioner Lara Roosevelt-Hennix while Petitioner's hands were cuffed behind her back and she was seated in the back seat of a police car. She brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Prickett subjected her to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Prickett argued he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied qualified immunity in an brief oral ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on Prickett's summary judgment motion. The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether Prickett clearly established by the evidence in the record, on his assertion that Petitioner actively resisted the officers' proper attempts to place her in leg restraints. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude Petitioner informed the officers she was physically unable to comply with their request to move her feet outside the patrol vehicle. Furthermore, the record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the officers never attempted to aid Petitioner in moving her feet before applying the taser. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Prickett's motion for summary judgment. View "Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Frances M. Flood, a federal inmate, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The Tenth Circuit granted a COA on two issues: (1) whether Petitioner's trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest that deprived her of effective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the district court erred in denying Petitioner's motions for an evidentiary hearing, discovery, and judicial notice. Upon review, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's motion. "In short, we simply cannot find a conflict of interest based on these facts. . . . Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Ms. Flood's motions for discovery and judicial notice." View "United States v. Flood" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Allen Browning was convicted by jury for the murder of Harry and Teresa Hye, the parents of his girlfriend Cenessa Tackett. Browning received a death sentence as punishment for these crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief. What the jury (and defense attorneys) did not know was that Tackett, who became the most important witness at trial, had been diagnosed with a severe mental disorder. According to records from her psychiatrist that were in the State's possession, Tackett blurred reality and fantasy, suffered from memory deficits, tended to project blame onto others, and had an assaultive, combative, and even potentially homicidal disposition. In subsequent proceedings, the contents of Tackett's mental health records came to light, prompting the federal district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The court reasoned that Tackett's mental health records were favorable to Browning and material to his defense, especially considering Browning's trial strategy to paint Tackett herself as complicit in the murders. The district court therefore ruled that the Constitution obligated the State to disclose those records to Browning before trial. Given the central role Tackett played at trial and the severity of her mental health diagnosis, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the psychiatric information was favorable to Browning and material to his defense, and that the Oklahoma courts could not have reasonably concluded otherwise. View "Browning v. Trammell" on Justia Law