Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed suit alleging that three masked correction officers (COs) sprayed him while he was in his cell with an unknown substance, apparently a mixture of fecal matter, vinegar, and machine oil. The COs were retaliating against plaintiff for reporting several prior assaults. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court was unwilling to accept, as a matter of law, the proposition that spraying an inmate with a mixture of feces, vinegar, and machine oil constituted a de minimis use of force. Even assuming arguendo that the physical force allegedly used was de minimis, spraying an inmate with the mixture was undoubtedly "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights and that the applicable statute of limitations did not preclude plaintiff from amending his complaint to name certain John Doe defendants. View "Hogan v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin. Defendants sought to suppress the evidence gathered with the aid of GPS data, arguing that the placement and tracking violated the Fourth Amendment. The court declined to reach the issue of whether the search was unconstitutional because it found that the government's actions in this case fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule pursuant to Davis v. United States. The court found defendants' remaining arguments were without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Aguiar" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulently using access devices to obtain items valued at $1,000 or more. Defendant appealed his sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that his appeal waiver was enforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Coston" on Justia Law

Defendants, three GE employees, were convicted of offenses related to their involvement in a scheme to fix below-market rates on interest paid by GE to municipalities. The court reversed the convictions and remanded to the district court for dismissal of the indictment, holding that the government did not allege overt acts within the limitations period. View "United States v. Grimm" on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed medical doctor, was indicted on seven counts of sexual exploitation of children and twenty-nine counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to quash grand jury subpoenas directed to his adult children and the denial of reconsideration of the motion. The court held that the district court's orders did not fall within the small class of rulings encompassed by the collateral order doctrine and were not otherwise final. Because they were not final decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291, they were not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Punn" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions related to their involvement in the robbery of a pharmacy. Defendant Taylor argued that he was incapacitated when he incriminated himself post-arrest and the admission of his statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. The court concluded that Taylor's post-arrest statements were not voluntary; admitting the statements into evidence was not harmless; the court vacated and remanded for a new trial; the admission of Taylor's statements, to the extent they could be used against Defendants Rosario and Vasquez, was not harmless error as to them; and the court vacated Rosario and Vasquez's conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana. At issue was whether the October 2009 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice created a de facto "rescheduling" of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., such that defendant could not validly be charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court held that the memo did not purport to reclassify marijuana from its current listing as a Schedule I substance under the CSA; the CSA mandated a particular rulemaking procedure through which the Attorney General may "reschedule" a substance; because the Attorney General did not follow that procedure here, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance; and a U.S. Attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion by not prosecuting uses of marijuana consistent with state law, in the circumstances presented here, did not conflict with the principles of federalism, preemption, or the supremacy of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Canori" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for cultivating marijuana plants. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, agreeing with defendant that the district court denied him the right to present a meaningful defense by rejecting his proffer of surrebuttal evidence to counter evidence introduced by the government on rebuttal. View "United States v. Cody (Murray)" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of drug and firearms offenses, appealed from the district court's denial of his motion for a new sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court did not provide a sufficient explanation of its decision not to reduce defendant's sentence despite his eligibility for such a reduction. View "United States v. Christie" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a modification of the conditions of his supervised release to require that supervised release be served in the Eastern District of Michigan, rather than in the District of Vermont, where he was convicted and sentenced. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court had authority to entertain defendant's motion for modification of his supervised-release conditions under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2) and to grant that motion with the qualification specified by the Eastern District of Michigan in its conditional agreement to accept defendant for supervision. The motion for an injunction pending appeal was denied as moot. View "United States v. Murdock" on Justia Law