Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Juan Morales was found guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eighty-six months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He also argued his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was placed in handcuffs and transported through the public area of the courthouse in view of the venire. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

As a result of an investigation into purported clinical weight-loss studies from 2006-2008, defendant Edward Mulikin was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the District of Colorado in November 2011. The indictment consisted of nineteen counts of mail fraud. Defendant was arrested in January 2012; in August 2012, a superseding indictment was filed asserting the same nineteen counts of mail fraud. The superseding indictment alleged that Defendant's purported weight-loss studies were part of an "advance fee scheme" in which Defendant made false representations to induce participants to submit deposits which he had no intention of refunding. Defendant's residence was searched pursuant to a warrant. Law enforcement seized two hard drives, a computer, two binders, and two folders during the search. Prior to trial, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized at his residence. After a trial, the jury convicted defendant to seventeen of the nineteen counts of mail fraud. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized at his home, challenging whether the warrant established probable cause that the items seized would have been located at the residence. Defendant also argued the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the criminal acts and the residence to be searched. Furthermore, defendant argued the list of items to be seized in the search warrant was impermissibly broad. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that even if evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was admitted in error, that admission was harmless and did not warrant reversal of defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Mullikin" on Justia Law

Defendant Charles Shaw was convicted of robbing a bank and two credit unions, attempting to commit a second robbery at one of the credit unions, and committing four related firearms offenses. He was acquitted on a charge of robbing a second bank. On appeal he argued: (1) the jury could not be impartial because it learned of an improper gesture he made to a member of the jury panel during jury selection; (2) the district court erred in admitting a confession of a codefendant who had been convicted at an earlier trial; (3) the court also erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged bank robbery; and (4) the court at sentencing, rather than the jury, found that he had been previously convicted of a firearms offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants appealed a district court order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Leatherwood brought suit seeking declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his constitutional rights stemming from the search of his house while he was a probationer in Oklahoma. Defendants were Oklahoma Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Division employees who participated in or authorized the search. The district court denied their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding that "questions of material fact remain[ed] regarding the existence of reasonable suspicion" for the search. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court, finding: (1) as a probationer, plaintiff had a diminished expectation of privacy; (2) the search of his house was reasonable if supported by reasonable suspicion; (3) probation searches could be premised on less reliable information than required in other contexts; (4) an anonymous, uncorroborated tip and a phone call from plaintiff's ex-wife were enough to create reasonable suspicion (defendant Welker had previously talked to plaintiff's ex and was presumably able to assess the wife's credibility and rely on her information); thus (5) the search of plaintiff's home did not violate his Constitutional rights. View "Leatherwood v. Welker, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Lawrence Taylor sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. He was found guilty by an Oklahoma jury of first degree murder and shooting with intent to kill for which he received consecutive life sentences. In his application for post-conviction relief, he argued that the government's witness against him at trial lied about his alleged confession to shooting the two victims. The witness recanted his testimony, but the district court denied relief. Thereafter, petitioner sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit. To the Tenth Circuit, petitioner argued the witness' affidavit recanting his testimony at trial was "newly discovered evidence" The Tenth Circuit concluded petitioner did not make a substantial showing that the district court erred in its finding that the "date on which the factual predicate of the claim… could have been discovered" prior to the date on which the judgment became final. As such, the Court denied the COA and dismissed the appeal. View "Taylor v. Martin" on Justia Law

Vanity Johnson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement in which she "knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] any right to appeal . . . any matter in connection with this prosecution, the defendant's conviction, or the components of the sentence to be imposed herein including the length and conditions of supervised release." Despite her appeal waiver, Johnson filed a notice of appeal and indicated her intent to challenge her sentence. The government moved to enforce Johnson's appeal waiver. On appeal, Johnson argued that her waiver was subject to an exception because the district court relied on an impermissible factor in its sentencing decision. However, Johnson did not challenge that impermissible factor at the district court. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit's review was for plain error only. Finding none, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A series of appeals came before the Tenth Circuit brought by Maria Vianey Medina-Copete and Rafael Goxcon-Chagal following their convictions on drug trafficking charges. The issue these cases presented to the Court were one of first impression. At trial, the district court allowed a purported expert on certain religious iconography to testify that veneration of a figure known as "Santa Muerte" was so connected with drug trafficking as to constitute evidence that the occupants of the vehicle were aware of the presence of drugs in a secret compartment. In addition to qualifying a law enforcement official as an expert on Santa Muerte, the court allowed the witness to wander far afield and render theological opinions about the "legitima[cy]" of Santa Muerte in relation to other venerated figures. Upon review of these cases, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the law enforcement officer was improperly vetted under Fed. R. Evid. 702, "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals," (509 U.S. 579 (1993)), and "Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael," (526 U.S. 137 (1999)), and that the testimony proffered was both impermissible and prejudicial. The Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial. View "United States v. Medina-Copete" on Justia Law

Michael Salas was pulled over for erratic driving and consented to a search of his car, which yielded over 20 pounds of methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute. On appeal, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the court erred in finding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop his car based on a violation of an Oklahoma fog line statute that requires driving "as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane." He also appealed the district court's sentence based on the court's refusal to decrease his offense level by one point under 3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) for acceptance of responsibility and the court's refusal to issue a downward departure for minor or minimal participation in criminal activity under 3B1.2. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Salas" on Justia Law

Anthony and Melissa Stonecipher became targets of an investigation because of their purchases and sales of firearms and explosives. During the investigation, federal officers discovered that Mr. Stonecipher had pled guilty in 2007 to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Missouri. One of the officers, Carlos Valles, concluded Mr. Stonecipher had violated federal law, which made it illegal for anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Acting on this knowledge, Valles obtained a search warrant for the Stoneciphers' home, ending with Mr. Stonecipher's arrest. It turned out that Mr. Stonecipher had not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for purposes of federal law. Prosecutors soon learned that the conviction did not count because the sentence had been suspended and, under Missouri law, a suspended sentence in these circumstances did not amount to a conviction. The government dismissed the criminal complaint. The Stoneciphers filed a "Biven"s action against Valles and other law enforcement officers involved in the investigation, alleging violations of their Fourth and First Amendment rights in connection with the search of their home and Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The Stoneciphers appealed the grant of summary judgment on their claims for unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of their First Amendment rights. For purposes of qualified immunity, Valles had enough information to: (1) conclude he had probable cause to search the Stoneciphers' home; and (2) arrest and file charges based on Mr. Stonecipher's possession of firearms and explosives. Further, there was no evidence that Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution were in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Stonecipher, et al v. Valles, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Joshua Smith robbed two stores and shot the managers in both. He was convicted on two counts of robbery, and two counts of using a gun "during and in relation to" those "crime[s] of violence." "Normally, [. . .] a district court enjoys considerable discretion when it comes to picking a prison term within the applicable statutory range. But at the government's urging in this case the district court decided there was one set of facts it had to disregard - Mr. Smith’s [section] 924(c) gun convictions and the lengthy sentence it just issued for them." The Tenth Circuit phrased the issue before it on appeal as whether "a sentencing court must studiously ignore one of the most conspicuous facts about a defendant when deciding how long he should spend in prison." The Court was "convinced the law doesn't require so much from sentencing courts. [. . .] Viewed with a cold eye, the relevant statutes permit a sentencing court to consider a defendant's 924(c) conviction and sentence just as they permit a sentencing court to consider most any other salient fact about a defendant. To say this much isn't to suggest a sentencing court must reduce a defendant's related crime of violence sentence in light of his mandatory gun enhancement sentence under 924(c). Only that the court is not required to feign the sort of ignorance the government demands." The Court affirmed defendant's conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law