Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

These appeals involved former policemen who were convicted in the same trial regarding their conduct during Hurricane Katrina, which resulted in the death of one citizen. Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences. The court held that, because Defendant Warren had demonstrated that he suffered specific compelling prejudice as a consequence of the district court's refusal to sever his trial from that of the other defendants, the district court abused its discretion in denying Warren's repeated motions to sever under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a). The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant McRae's conviction for denying the citizen's descendants and survivors the right to access the courts, and therefore reversed and vacated that conviction. The court affirmed McRae's other convictions, rejecting his double jeopardy challenge, and remanded for resentencing. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendant McCabe a new trial, and therefore affirmed that order. View "United States v. McCabe" on Justia Law

This case arose from the death of Jason Ray Brown in the Wichita County Jail while he was a pretrial detainee. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wichita County and Dr. Daniel Bolin, the physician in charge of the jail, on plaintiffs' federal civil rights claims. The court held that the district court properly analyzed this case as an episodic acts case. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Dr. Bolin and Wichita County on the issue of qualified immunity. The record contained no evidence of failure of the system of medical care at the Wichita County Jail that would indicate that the the county or the doctor were deliberately indifferent in maintaining that policy. View "Brown, et al v. Wichita County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint, and several amended complaints, against the Louisiana Department of Corrections, asserting that threats and harassment had occurred periodically since July 2006; that he had suffered an excessive use of force in July 2006 and on November 11, 2009; that he had suffered a denial of medical care, a due process denial resulting from an extended stay in lockdown; and state law assault and battery. Because the court found that pre-filing administrative exhaustion was required pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), the court reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment and remanded for entry of judgment dismissing the complaint. View "Gonzalez v. Seal, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose from a finding that a lawful permanent resident of the United States' conviction of burglary of a vehicle under New Mexico's burglary statute rendered him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for committing a crime of violence. The court concluded that the burglary under the New Mexico statute did constitute a crime of violence where it entailed a significant likelihood that force would be used against another's property. Because the court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's remaining claims, the court dismissed them. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine and subsequently appealed his 132-month sentence. The court affirmed the sentence and held that the district court did not commit procedural error by considering his prior arrest record; the district court's consideration of the facts underlying defendant's prior arrests was not procedural error; and defendant did not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that applied to his within-Guidelines sentence. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendants Rodriquez and Izquierdo appealed their convictions and sentences for drug offenses. The court held that Rodriquez's warrantless arrest was amply supported by probable cause; the search of Rodriquez's cell phone was permissible in light of United States v. Finley; and Izquierdo's argument that the Government failed to introduce any evidence as to the reliability of the dog used to sniff the truck at issue was waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, collaterally attacking his convictions and sentences for money-laundering. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying defendant's claim that his money-laundering convictions should be vacated in light of United States v. Santos. The court declined to vacate defendant's money-laundering convictions and sentence on the basis of Santos, concluding that the jury's finding that defendant laundered money under a broad definition of "proceeds" did not warrant the vacatur of defendant's money-laundering convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his section 2255 motion. View "United States v. Lineberry" on Justia Law

A magistrate certified that petitioner could be extradited to Argentina to stand trial for fraud. Petitioner contended that his alleged fraud was not an extraditable offense, arguing that because the government did not establish the value of the goods he obtained, his possible jail term under domestic law could not exceed one year. Because competent evidence supported the certifying magistrate's determination that petitioner committed an offense within the scope of the extradition treaty, the court affirmed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. View "Balzan v. United States" on Justia Law

Robert C. Morris, a current Texas prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that he was entitled to monetary damage as a result of an alleged illegal search and that, because the trial court had dismissed his conviction, he was now able to present his section 1983 claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey. The trial court's early release order merely concluded that Morris satisfactorily completed a sufficient percentage of his community supervision and that dismissal of the proceedings and the remainder of his term was appropriate under Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 section 20. The court held that the language in the order was not equivalent to an order invalidating his conviction. The order did not include express language dismissing his indictment, nor did it state his guilty plea was withdrawn, that the verdict was set aside, or that his civil liberties were restored. Accordingly, the court held that the district judge properly concluded that Morris's claims were barred by Heck. The court also held that Morris's remaining two arguments were unavailing and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Morris v. McAllester, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for transporting child pornography and for possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the indictment without prejudice; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting two exhibits of child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Blank" on Justia Law