Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Tenth Circuit answered the question posed by the issue on appeal in this case with a "yes:" whether a police officer who observed a handgun tucked in the waistband of a convenience store employee had reasonable suspicion that the employee was unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon in violation of federal law, and therefore justified a "stop-and-frisk." View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma jury convicted Bigler Jobe "Bud" Stouffer of first degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for the shooting. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief. Stouffer sought habeas relief in federal court to challenge his conviction and sentence on nine grounds. The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on four. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief on three of the four grounds. The Court reversed on the ground of jury tampering, and remanded the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. View "Stouffer v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Daud Anwar pled guilty to making false threats to destroy buildings. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed only the four-level sentence enhancement he received under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for causing a “substantial disruption” to public “functions or services.” Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Anwar" on Justia Law

Jeremy Myers challenged the district court's dismissal of his malicious prosecution claim, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, he argued that Detective Brian Koopman obtained an arrest warrant by fabricating facts to create the illusion of probable cause. As a result, Myers spent three days in custody. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing Myers’ Fourteenth Amendment claim because an adequate state remedy existed, but the district court improperly dismissed Myers’ Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim as untimely after recasting it as a claim for false imprisonment. View "Myers v. Koopman" on Justia Law

Defendant Officer Patricia Yazzie appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity in this case that alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment (Count I) and illegal seizure of property (Count II). This case was an interlocutory appeal following the district court's ruling in an action brought by Spero Panagoulakos pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. 1343. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because "no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after [a] traffic stop." View "Panagoulakos v. Yazzie, et al" on Justia Law

Two prison guards had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff-Appellant Stacey Graham while she was in solitary confinement at the Logan County Jail in Oklahoma. The guards confessed and were fired immediately. Plaintiff sought damages in a civil-rights complaint against the two guards and the county sheriff. She alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the sexual acts were consensual. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision: "[a]lthough we recognize a need to examine consent carefully in the prison context, this case does not present a factual issue with regard to Ms. Graham's consent." View "Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, et al" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Nathan Archuleta of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting a gang expert’s testimony under the federal Rules of Evidence. Of the three evidentiary rules he cited, only Rule 403 was raised by defendant at trial. As a result, the Tenth Circuit's review of his arguments pertaining to Rule 702 and Rule 704(b) were limited to plain error review. Finding no error as to all three rules, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Archuleta" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven Carmichael Warren pled guilty to a second armed bank robbery, and the district court imposed a sentence of 25 years. Appellant challenged the procedural reasonableness of that sentence, arguing the factual accuracy of statements in the presentence report and that the district court erred by increasing his sentence after assuming the truth of those disputed statements. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed appellant's conviction. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

Defendant Vernon Hill was convicted for bank robbery. He appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The government changed its theory about defendant's two brother's involvement in the robbery; the government prosecuted defendant and Stanley Hill as the two masked men who committed the robbery. The jury convicted defendant but could not agree on Stanley. Stanley was later retried and convicted. Several months after the trial, the government obtained cell-phone data and other evidence, and charged defendant and DeJuan Hill with conspiring to commit other robberies. In presenting this new case to a grand jury, an FBI agent called to testify revealed that the government's understanding of the bank robbery had changed, and that Stanley was not one of the robbers but the getaway car driver- the two that committed the robbery were defendant and DeJuan. Defendant then moved to set aside his prior conviction based on the FBI agent's testimony. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with defendant's contention that he was entitled to a new trial because the testimony was wrong constituted, and that the cell phone data was new, exculpatory evidence. The Court concluded that the FBI agent's admission that the two-robbers theory was wrong was not admissible evidence, and nothing else defendant described in his appeal was newly discovered evidence. As such, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jeremiah Jackson appealed his conviction and sentence for the deaths of two women accidentally killed while defendant was fleeing police following a bank robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the proper charge against him should have been one count of bank robbery resulting in death, and that the district court erred: (1) in denying his post-trial motion to vacate one of the two remaining counts as multiplicitous because sentencing on both violated double jeopardy; (2) in denying a motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor commented on defendant's silence and failure to testify; and (3) in failing to instruct that a section 2113(e) conviction required a mens rea element. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and remanded the case to the district court to vacate the sentence for resentencing. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law