Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Nick Lynch claimed that City of Denver Police Officers Defendants Adam Barrett, Stephen Kenfield, and Michael Morelock violated his constitutional right to court access by refusing to disclose who exercised excessive force against him in the course of an arrest. Furthermore, Plaintiff claimed that the City violated his right to access by adopting a "conspiracy of silence" with regard to refusing to disclose the name of the officer who allegedly used excessive force against him. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity claim with regard to Plaintiff's first claim; the court denied the City's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's second claim. All defendants appealed the denials to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under the "collateral order doctrine," the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in denying the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. The Court concluded that the City's appeal was not "inextricably intertwined" with the officers' appeal in order to exercise pendent jurisdiction over its claim. The Tenth Circuit found "nothing at this point prevent[ed] Plaintiff's claim against Defendant City from proceeding." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the City's appeal for want of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Lynch v. Barrett, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Cory Washington pled guilty to two firearms charges. Before sentencing, the government filed a notice of prior convictions to support a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The probation office identified three predicate violent felonies: an adult conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, an adult conviction for second degree burglary, and an Oklahoma juvenile adjudication for pointing a weapon. Defendant objected to the application of the juvenile adjudication, but the district court ultimately concluded that the juvenile adjudication qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA. The court therefore applied the enhancement and sentenced Defendant to the minimum sentence under the Act. On appeal, Defendant raised his issue with the juvenile adjudication to support his sentence enhancement. Finding that the juvenile adjudication was appropriately applied as a predicate conviction under the ACCA, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bruce M. Jones, II appealed a district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He sought to suppress all evidence that Kansas law enforcement obtained from searches of his residence and vehicle pursuant to search warrants issued by a Kansas state court, including multiple marijuana plants. Defendant contended that officers of the Missouri State Highway Patrol violated his Fourth Amendment rights when the officers: (1) engaged him in an accusatory conversation outside of his residence in Kansas City, Kansas; (2) later took his driver's license; and (3) then entered his residence without a warrant or consent. Defendant argued that the information that the Missouri officers obtained from their Fourth Amendment violations provided the essential foundation for the Kansas search warrants issued for his residence and vehicle. Without this tainted information, Defendant argued that the warrants lacked probable cause to support the searches. After thorough review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit rejected all of Defendant's contentions on appeal and affirmed the order denying suppression of the evidence. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant Sturgeon Stewart appealed a district court's judgment in favor of defendants on his claims under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Appellant was an inmate in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) and confined at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (El Dorado). In accordance with his Rastafarian religious beliefs, he does not cut or comb his hair, which he keeps in dreadlocks. In December 2006, Stewart learned that his mother had been diagnosed with cancer. To be closer to her, Stewart requested a voluntary transfer to the Lansing Correctional Facility (Lansing). His request was granted. On the day of the transfer, one of the defendants, Officer Agnes Beach, refused to allow Stewart to board the transport vehicle because he could not comb out his dreadlocks, as was required by the KDOC policy then in effect. Beach consulted with her supervisor who gave Appellant a choice: either cut his hair or forego the transfer. Appellant told defendants of his religious beliefs; in lieu of cutting his hair, Appellant offered that the officers pat down his hair and use a metal detector to search for contraband. Wilson cancelled the transfer and sent Appellant to administrative segregation. Appellant filed multiple unsuccessful grievances. Appellant eventually cut his hair and was transferred to Lansing the next day. In 2008, acting pro se, Appellant filed this action asserting that defendants essentially forced him to choose between adhering to his religious beliefs and transferring closer to his ailing mother, and that this violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA. Claims against defendants were dismissed. Upon review of the applicable legal authority implied by this case, the Tenth Circuit largely agreed with the district court's decision and affirmed. View "Stewart v. Beach" on Justia Law

The government appealed a district court order granting Defendant-Appellee Manuel Santistevan's motion to suppress statements made after invoking the right to counsel. Defendant was indicted on three counts of interference with commerce by robbery, using and carrying a dangerous weapon during the commission of a violent crime, possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The district court held that Defendant unambiguously invoked the right to counsel when he gave an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") a letter from his attorney indicating that he did not wish to speak without counsel. Because the agent continued to interrogate Defendant, the district court suppressed the incriminating statements that Defendant subsequently made. Upon review of the record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant indeed unambiguously invoked the right to counsel when he gave the letter drafted by his attorney to the agent, and affirmed the district court in suppressing the statements. View "United States v. Santistevan" on Justia Law

Defendant Skoshi Farr was convicted by a jury of violating 26 U.S.C. 7201 for willfully failing to pay a trust fund recovery penalty that the Internal Revenue Service assessed against her after she, as the manager of an alternative medical clinic, failed to pay quarterly employment taxes owed by the clinic. Defendant appealed her conviction, contending she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the district court's rulings which permitted the admission of certain Rule 404(b) evidence. She also contended the district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, which argued that the government's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, and in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to charge the offense under the appropriate statute. Finally, Defendant contended her prosecution in this case was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause as a result of the government's prior unsuccessful prosecution. Upon review of the case and the applicable statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's arguments lacked merit, and affirmed her conviction. View "United States v. Farr" on Justia Law

State prisoner James Clayton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney ignored his repeated instructions to file an appeal after he pled guilty. The magistrate judge found that Mr. Clayton’s attorney disregarded his request to file an appeal and recommended that the district court conditionally grant the writ and order that Mr. Clayton be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea within 120 days. The district court agreed. On appeal, the State contended the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. It argued alternatively that even if habeas relief was warranted, the district court should have only allowed Mr. Clayton an out of time direct appeal, rather than the right to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Mr. Clayton received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. The Court ordered a limited remand to the district court to allow it to supplement the record with its reasons for ordering as the remedy that Mr. Clayton be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court retained jurisdiction over the appeal while the district court supplemented the record. View "Clayton v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Brian Luis Guardado entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment and 36 months' supervised release. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a Terry stop-and-frisk. Exercising that right, Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred in holding the officers' stop was based upon reasonable suspicion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that in this case, several factors - the most important of which was Defendant's own evasive behavior - converged to create an objectively reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, the Court held that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Guardado" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Christopher Michael Conner entered a conditional plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. On appeal, he argued that the officers who stopped and frisked him based upon an anonymous tip violated the Fourth Amendment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that "[t]his [was] clearly not a case of police officers arbitrarily stopping an individual walking down the sidewalk during the middle of the afternoon. . . . nor [was] this a case of police officers arbitrarily stopping an individual walking down an alley late at night in a high-crime area. Here, the officers had a sufficiently reliable tip and a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity they believed Mr. Conner might have been involved in an armed confrontation. Reasonable suspicion requires a dose of reasonableness and simply does not require an officer to rule out every possible lawful explanation for suspicious circumstances before effecting a brief stop to investigate further." View "United States v. Conner" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of obstructing justice stemming from his disclosure of the existence of an ongoing undercover investigation to one of the targets of that investigation. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months and one day, followed by six months of home confinement and a term of supervised release. Upon review of Defendant's arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the government presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could find Defendant obstructed justice when he informed the target of the ongoing undercover investigation. Accordingly, Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.View "United States v. Ahrensfield" on Justia Law