Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Defendant James McKeighan was convicted on four federal charges relating to possession of firearms, marijuana, and methamphetamine. On appeal before the Tenth Circuit, Defendant raised three claims of alleged error at the district court: (1) the Government and the district court forced his attorney of choice to withdraw, violating his rights under the Sixth Amendment; (2) jurors fell asleep during trial depriving him of the right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment; and (3) the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no prejudicial errors at trial, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Adam Frost was tried and convicted for the rape of a 17-year-old girl, and was sentenced to 200 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction on the grounds that the trial court plainly erred in admitting hearsay testimony of several witnesses, including the victim's sister, a nurse, and law enforcement officers. Defendant also challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court violated his due process rights by not allowing him to make a statement at sentencing until after the court had already decided his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court did not plainly err in admitting the challenged testimony. Although some of the challenged testimony was admitted in error, none was so obvious or prejudicial as to warrant reversal. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court's alleged error at sentencing did not seriously impair the fairness of the proceedings.

Defendant-Appellant Ronald Dougan was convicted of robbing a post office. He appealed the district court's imposition of special sex-offender conditions of release. The court imposed these requirements based on Defendant's criminal history, which included a thirty-three year old conviction for sexual battery and a seventeen-year old conviction for aggravated battery, originally charged as sexual battery. Because the underlying sexual offenses, when viewed in the factual context in which they arose, were too remote to be reasonably related to the present offense, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case with directions to vacate the special sex-offender conditions of release imposed as a part of Defendant's sentence. The Court dismissed Defendant's challenge to the district court's recommendation for treatment during incarceration for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Turner, a member of the Kiowa Tribe, was charged by Oklahoma state authorities with instituting or encouraging cockfighting. The state court rejected his argument that the crime took place in Indian Country. While state prosecution was ongoing, Plaintiff requested that the Court of Indian Offenses for the Kiowa Tribe enjoin the state proceeding. That court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff was subsequently convicted in state court. Plaintiff then sued the judges of the Court of Indian Offenses in federal district court. The district court denied relief, concluding that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity as tribal officials. After its review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing because he could not establish redressability. Given the procedural posture of this case, it was unclear what, if any, action the district court could have taken to undermine Plaintiff's conviction.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Madden pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motions to suppress and to quash the indictment for excessive delay. He argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his detention and subsequent search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, he argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to quash the indictment because of a preindictment delay of four years violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied both motions. Neither Defendant's detention nor the search of his vehicle violated Defendant's constitutional rights: his investigatory detention was justified by articulable and reasonable suspicion and his subsequent arrest was supported by probable cause. Moreover, the search of Defendant's vehicle fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In addition, the preindictment delay did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. Defendant failed to show the requisite prejudice to establish a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Furthermore, because the delay occurred prior to Defendant's indictment, his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.

Defendants William L. Pickard and Clyde Apperson were convicted of drug-related crimes in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. An important witness for the prosecution was informant Gordon Todd Skinner, a criminal associate of Defendants. After the convictions were affirmed on appeal, Defendants filed motions for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming, among other things, that the prosecution had violated their rights under "Brady v. Maryland",(373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and "Giglio v. United States", (405 U.S. 150 (1972)), by suppressing evidence of Skinner's criminal and informant background. The district court rejected the claims. Defendants applied for certificates of appealability (COAs) to appeal the district court's decision, but we denied their applications. They also filed district-court motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the court's judgment in the Section 2255 proceedings, raising multiple claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants' claims of "Brady/Giglio" violations at trial were second-or-successive claims; and because Defendants did not establish the requisites for authorizing a second-or-successive claim, the Court denied authorization. On the other hand, Defendants' claims that prosecutorial misconduct in the Section 2255 proceedings affected the integrity of those proceedings are proper Rule 60(b) claims; and the Court remanded those claims to the district court for resolution.

Defendant Johnny Black was convicted of first-degree murder and battery with a dangerous weapon. On the recommendation of the jury, Defendant received a death sentence on the first-degree murder conviction. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) and pursuing two postconviction proceedings in state court, Defendant unsuccessfully applied for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the Oklahoma federal district court. Defendant appealed the district court's decision, raising 14 claims of error at trial, including ineffective assistance of counsel. On the first eight claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on the merits generally because the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law in rejecting these claims. On the remaining claims the district court denied relief on the ground of procedural bar. Before the Court could determine whether it agreed with the district court, the Court needed to resolve a question of Oklahoma procedural law: whether Oklahoma's bar of Defendant's second postconviction application was independent of federal law or instead required the OCCA to examine the merits of Defendant's federal constitutional claims. The Court therefore certified a question of state law to the OCCA, abating this appeal pending consideration by the OCCA of the Tenth Circuit's certification request.

Defendant-Appellant Raul Cruz was convicted, after a jury trial, of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred (1) by not requiring the government to disclose a confidential informant involved in a controlled buy, and (2) in relying on certain disputed facts about the controlled buy contained in the PSR. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of the district court's discretion and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

"By all appearances, Defendant Howard Kieffer had a successful nationwide criminal law practice." Defendant managed to gain admission to multiple federal trial and appellate courts across the country where he appeared on behalf of numerous criminal defendants. Defendant never attended law school, sat for a bar exam, nor receive a license to practice law. A North Dakota jury convicted Defendant of mail fraud and for making false statements. The jury found Defendant gained admission to the District of North Dakota by submitting a materially false application to the court, then relied on that admission to gain admission to the District of Minnesota, District of Colorado, and Western District of Missouri. The district court sentenced Defendant to 51 months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution to six victims of his scheme. A jury in Colorado also convicted him of making false statements, wire fraud and contempt of court. The district court sentenced Defendant to 57 months' imprisonment to run consecutively to the 51 month sentence previously imposed on him in North Dakota. The court further ordered him to pay restitution to seven victims of his scheme unaccounted for in North Dakota, and directed him as a special condition of supervised release to obtain the probation office's preapproval of any proposed employment or business ventures. Defendant appealed his most recent convictions and sentence from Colorado, each based on his Sixth Amendment right to have the Government prove, and a jury find, all elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Defendant presented five challenges to his sentence, three of which bore directly upon the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the record reflected that by the time of Defendant's actual sentencing, the district court had decided to sentence him within the advisory guideline range. The court then proceeded to calculate Defendant’s guideline range incorrectly on the basis of numerous procedural errors, both factual and legal. As a result, the court selected a sentence from the wrong guideline range. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence on Counts I and II of the superceding indictment and remanded the case for resentencing. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Defendant Manuel Avitia-Guillen, a citizen of Mexico, lawfully entered the United States in 1955. He obtained permanent resident status in 1988 but was deported in June 1996 after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") discovered Defendant in Denver, Colorado, in May 2011. A grand jury indicted Defendant with one count of being found in the United States. At trial, the Government called a fingerprint examiner with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to testify that Defendant's fingerprints matched those on his 1996 deportation records. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, but the district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Defendant to the low end of the guideline range, 41 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court failed to make adequate findings of reliability with respect to the CBI expert's testimony. "The issue Defendant raises on appeal is extremely narrow[:] . . . the district court erred 'by failing to create an adequate record demonstrating that it satisfied its gatekeeping obligations.'" Defendant did not object to the expert's methodology at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not plainly err in its implicit determination that the CBI expert's testimony was based on "reliable principles and methods" that were "reliably applied."