Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner pled guilty to four counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree under Connecticut General Statute 53a-73a(a)(2), which criminalizes subjecting "another person to sexual contact without such other person's consent." The United States then commenced removal proceedings against petitioner under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Under federal immigration law, petitioner's removal turns on whether the crime he was convicted of is a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court is unable to predict what level of mens rea the Connecticut courts would require, and because the issue involves the weighing of important policy considerations, the court certified questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court. View "Efstathiadis v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his participation in coordinated suicide bombings in the New York City subway system. Defendant eventually caused a high-speed collision with another car, attempting to trigger an explosion that would kill himself and others. On appeal, defendant sought a new trial solely on the basis that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress postarrest statements. The court concluded that, even assuming that Miranda rights may properly be asserted by a suspect prior to his being in custody and prior to his being questioned, there was no clear and unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel by defendant before his arrest; defendant's signing of the Miranda waiver was knowing and voluntary; the court rejected defendant's contention that the government's interference with the attorney-client relationship prior to his indictment ripened into a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel upon his indictment and that the government's refusal to honor his choice to deal with the government through counsel violated his right to substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Medunjanin" on Justia Law

Defendants Mandell and Harrington appealed from their convictions of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud; securities fraud; wire fraud; and mail fraud. The principal issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants of securities fraud. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence of domestic transactions, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of defendants' convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants of securities fraud. The government conceded that the forfeiture order should have made defendants jointly and severally liable for forfeiture. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded as to this issue. The court rejected defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Mandell" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to drug-related offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that his erratic and irrational behavior following the entry of his plea required the district court to hold a competency hearing before imposing sentence and that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by the denial of his multiple post-plea requests for an attorney to help him withdraw his plea. The court held that the district court was not required to hold a competency hearing before defendant's plea; defendant's post-plea behavior was not so erratic that it should have given the district court reason to doubt his competency; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's post-plea requests for an attorney in light of defendant's alternating positions with respect to representation and his attempt to delay the proceedings; and defendant's sentence was reasonable. The court rejected defendant's arguments in his pro se brief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kerr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, the NYPD, and four individual State and Federal law enforcement officials under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988 and State law. Plaintiff claimed that a Federal agent presented false testimony to the State grand jury that returned the indictment against him. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's Bivens and section 1983 claims were foreclosed by Rehberg v. Paulk; plaintiff's allegation that his indictment was premised on faulty laboratory results failed to support a plausible fair trial claim; the district court correctly held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for abuse of process as to either the individual NYPD defendants or the agent; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution; plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that defendants acted with discriminatory animus, as required to state a claim under sections 1981 or 1985; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim against the City and the NYPD for municipal liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. View "Morales v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2), which requires a minimum term of imprisonment of ten years. The enhancement applied when a defendant is found guilty of possessing child pornography and was previously convicted under state law of a crime "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Defendant had previously been convicted in state court of first degree sexual abuse of his fifty-three year-old girlfriend. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that section 2252(b)(2) does not require that a prior state-law aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse conviction involve a minor. View "United States v. Lockhart" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Barbados, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). At issue was whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Vartelas v. Holder required the court to find that defendant was eligible for relief from deportation under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court held that deeming noncitizens like defendant ineligible for section 212(c) relief merely because they were convicted after trial would have an impermissible retroactive effect because it would impermissibly attach new legal consequences to conviction that pre-date the repeal of section 212(c). In this instance, the court found that the district court erred because defendant was erroneously found to be ineligible for relief under section 212(c). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. Defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. The court held that the four statements at issue did not show a willful intent to provide false testimony. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's ex-wife, intoxicated and strung out, called the police and falsely accused plaintiff of assaulting her. Plaintiff was charged with assault and resisting arrest. After the charges were dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff filed suit against his ex-wife, the arresting officers, and the City, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that because arguable probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff, his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution were properly dismissed; plaintiff's claim for denial of his right to a fair trial was properly dismissed because he failed to meet the required pleading standards; and plaintiff's claims against the ex-wife were properly dismissed because she did not act under the color of state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Betts v. Shearman, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his federal kidnapping conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he held his kidnapping victim against the victim's will. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant, after tricking his victim into a minivan, intended to continue holding the victim against his will - and so defendant did - before robbing and killing the victim, and leaving his body along the road. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Corbett" on Justia Law