Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his participation in the Colombo organized crime family. Defendant claimed that the government violated due process requirements by failing to disclose exculpatory information and failing to correct testimony known to be false. The court affirmed the judgment because the district court did not err in finding that the allegedly exculpatory evidence was not suppressed and was not material; and that the alleged perjury was not material to defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Orena (Sessa)" on Justia Law

Defendants James and Mallay appealed from judgments of conviction based on their participation in a wide-ranging conspiracy that involved fraudulently obtained life insurance policies for members of their extended families and others in the Guyanese and Guyanese-American community, and, in several instances, murder of the insured to collect on those policies. The court found no error in the admission of an autopsy report and a toxicology report; there was no error in the district court's decision to exclude the prosecutor's rebuttal statement in a prior, related trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing as impeachment evidence certain statements made by a witness; the district court's denial of James' severance motion did not warrant vacatur of the verdict; there was no Sixth Amendment violation in the admission of surreptitious recordings made by a government informant; it was proper to admit that recording; there was no error in denying a motion for a new trial; and there was no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. James and Mallay" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of honest services mail fraud. Defendant argued that the district court committed reversible error when it used a jury instruction on honest services mail fraud that allowed the jury to find him guilty of that crime without finding a bribery or kickback scheme, in contravention of the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States. The court held, under plain error review, that while the jury instruction was error, it did not merit reversal because bribery was the only theory of honest services mail fraud available to the jury based on the arguments and evidence at trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Botti" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, sought an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that, to the extent that this second motion presented the same claim presented in the first untimely section 2255 motion, the claim was dismissed under Green v. United States. To the extent this second motion presented a new claim based on Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, that new claim must be dismissed because it was not based on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Accordingly, the court denied the motion. View "Gallagher v. United States" on Justia Law

A jury found that plaintiff failed to prove her claim that the shooting of her family's dog by a law enforcement officer during the execution of a search warrant of her home was an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, plaintiff contended that defendants' failure to train its officers regarding non-lethal means to secure dogs and to formulate a plan to restrain plaintiff's dog using non-lethal means rendered the officer's shooting of her dog unconstitutional as a matter of law. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that no amount of planning or training would have changed the outcome in this case. Plaintiff offered no evidence that any non-lethal means of controlling her dog would have allowed the officer to quickly escape the "fatal funnel" and effectively execute the no-knock warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Carroll v. County of Monroe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, affirmatively signed a consent form indicating that he did not consent to disposition of the case by the Magistrate Judge. On the present record, the court could not say that plaintiff gave his implied consent. As a pro se litigant, he could not have appreciated that participating in proceedings before the Magistrate Judge could impugn the effectiveness of his written refusal to consent. The court also held that the lack of consent was a jurisdictional defect that could not be waived. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court. View "Yeldon v. Fisher et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer, appealed from the district court's denial of his motion for qualified immunity in a claim brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated her Fourth Amendment rights when, while searching her car with her consent during a traffic stop, he read a piece of her mail. The piece of mail was a court document pertaining to the arrest of plaintiff's husband "for possession," and a letter that plaintiff had written to a judge. The court concluded that, while the scope of plaintiff's consent was not limited to a search for any particular object or contraband, it did not extend to the text of her mail. However, since this right was not clearly established at the time of the search, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Winfield v. Trottier" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Nouri, Eric Nouri, and Anthony Martin appealed convictions stemming from their involvement with a market manipulation scheme with Smart Online, Inc. stock. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court erred in instructing the jury on fraud by deprivation of honest services, especially in the context of securities fraud, and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain convictions for securities fraud. Martin also contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of honest-services wire fraud, that the district court erroneously limited his examination of a witness, and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in defendants' arguments. View "United States v. Nouri" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment convicting him of conspiring to commit and committing three Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, robberies and of brandishing a firearm during two of the robberies. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's determination that it was required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment of seven and twenty-five years on the gun counts. The court agreed with its sister circuits, which have consistently upheld sentences imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms for multiple 18 U..S.C. 924(c) convictions in the same proceeding. Accordingly, the court held affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robles" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of charges stemming from an identity theft scheme. At issue on appeal was defendant's conviction under 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(A), which criminalized the use of social security numbers assigned on the basis of false information. Defendant's social security number was assigned in 1972, on the basis of information the government conceded, for purposes of this case, was entirely accurate. Therefore, the court found that the government failed to prove an element of the offense, namely, that the social security number was assigned on the basis of false information. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions on all charges except as to Count Five, which the court reversed and vacated, remanding for resentencing. Defendant's remaining arguments on appeal were rejected by the court in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law