Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants were convicted of several offenses arising from terrorism activities. In consolidated appeals, defendants raised several arguments challenging their convictions and sentences. The court rejected defendants' argument that their speech espousing violent jihad was protected by the First Amendment, concluding that the First Amendment was no bar to the government's use of defendants' speech to demonstrate their participation in the charged conspiracies; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give defendants' proposed jury instructions; the court rejected defendants' numerous claims of evidentiary errors; and the evidence was sufficient to support their various convictions. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying the terrorism enhancement; Defendant Hassan failed to establish that he was a minimal participant and did not qualify for a reduction in his sentence based on that ground; and Defendants Yaghi and Sherifi's sentences were substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

The district court granted defendant's motion for a mistrial on the condition that she waive her rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 - 3174. More than 70 days after the mistrial was declared, the district court conducted a second trial where the jury found defendant guilty of theft of government funds. The court held that although defendant's attempt to waive her rights under the Act was null and void, she was not entitled to assert for the first time on appeal that a violation of the Act occurred; the plain language of the Act required that a defendant asserting a violation of the Act move for dismissal of an indictment before a new trial begins, or be precluded from seeking such a dismissal; in view of this waiver imposed by statute, the court was not permitted to consider defendant's argument that her rights under the Act were violated; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mosteller" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4247-48. The court concluded that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to find that defendant met the standard for civil commitment under the Act where the Government did not present clear and convincing evidence that defendant's mental illnesses would cause him to have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Antone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner housed at Red Onion State Prison (ROSP), filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000 cc et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging ROSP's 2010 Ramadan policy. ROSP had devised a new eligibility policy for 2010 where, in addition to signing up to participate in Ramadan, inmates had to provide some physical indicia of Islamic faith. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment order granting defendants qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims for monetary relief where defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that the 2010 Ramadan policy, as applied to plaintiff, did not violate his First Amendment rights and where their alleged actions violated plaintiff's clearly established rights; vacated the district court's decision that the prison's abandonment of the policy mooted the claims for equitable relief where defendants failed to meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that it was "absolutely clear" that the 2010 Ramadan policy would not be reinstated; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wall v. Wade" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778, for attempting to export small-arms ammunition to Jordan without a license. Defendant, working as a financial-management Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. embassy in Jordan, sought to ship certain personal possessions, including 366 pounds of ammunition, from his parent's house in Alabama to Jordan via a government contract carrier. The court concluded that, under the relevant standard of willfulness, defendant's true belief as to the illegality of transporting the ammunition at issue was sufficient to establish culpability under the Act even if unaccompanied by knowledge of the contents of the United States Munitions List. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that defendant willfully violated the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bishop" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with one count of traveling in interstate commerce and knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250. Defendant argued that his plea of nolo contendere to attempted sexual battery in Florida state court did not qualify as a conviction within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly found defendant's plea of nolo contendere with adjudication withheld constituted a conviction for the purposes of SORNA because it resulted in a penal consequence. View "United States v. Bridges" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of five felony counts relating to the sale of counterfeit prescription drugs. Defendant sought to introduce evidence establishing a gray market for prescription pills to argue that some of the pills that police seized from him could be genuine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in barring cross-examination regarding gray market evidence where there was no connection to the knowledge element and consequently no relevance; defendant cannot use the privilege against self-incrimination as a means to free himself from the basic rules of relevancy; if the evidence were relevant, the district court did not commit reversible error by directing the evidence to defendant's case-in-chief; and, in the alternative, the gray market evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court also held that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence sufficiently established defendant's knowledge and, therefore, defendant's sufficiency argument failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shauaib Zayyad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of a firearm offense, contending that the evidence discovered during a traffic stop should have been suppressed at trial because the traffic offense for which he was cited - leaving a vehicle standing such that it obstructs traffic - did not apply to the road on which he had stopped his car. The court rejected this argument, concluding that closely related traffic law barred the conduct for which defendant was cited. The court rejected defendant's argument challenging the exclusion of prior police misconduct where the district court's decision to exclude the evidence was neither arbitrary nor irrational. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams, IV" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of filing false income tax returns. Defendant was subsequently denied habeas relief but the district court granted him a certificate of appealability (COA) on his Sixth Amendment challenge. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that defendant failed to establish that his trial counsel's representation was anything other than objectively reasonable where counsel's decision not to call certain witnesses was a reasonable strategic decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dehlinger" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of bank robbery. The court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow defendant to testify in narrative form was not arbitrary or disproportionate to its purpose; the court also rejected defendant's claim that the district court impermissibly forced him to choose between his right to represent himself and to choose between testifying pro se in question-answer form and testifying in response to questions from standby counsel who would then control the case; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Beckton" on Justia Law