Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Youngstown police attempted to pull over a stolen Cadillac believed to be involved in an earlier robbery. The driver attempted to flee and hit an unmarked police car that had its lights on as it drove toward the Cadillac. As the pursuit, which involved nine officers, continued, passengers in the Cadillac (driven by Christian) shot rifles at the pursuing police cars. Christian’s first state court trial ended in verdicts of not guilty on nine counts of felonious assault and in a hung jury on the remaining seven counts of complicity to felonious assault. The state sought to retry Christian on the seven complicity counts. Christian filed a habeas petition, claiming violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that complicity to felonious assault and felonious assault are not the same crime and that no ultimate fact necessary for his conviction of complicity to felonious assault was determined by the jury at the first trial. View "Christian v. Wellington" on Justia Law

Mateen pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) after police discovered more than 600 images of child pornography on his computer. In 2006, Mateen had pleaded guilty to Gross Sexual Imposition in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2907.05. The state-court plea colloquy indicated that his victim was an eight-year-old girl. The district court imposed a ten-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment, concluding that a statutory enhancement (18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2)) for recidivist sexual offenders did not apply to because Mateen’s prior conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition did not necessarily involve a minor or ward. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The state statute under which he was convicted covers several possible offenses and the information concerning the viction was not essential to Mateen’s guilty plea.View "United States v. Mateen" on Justia Law

Adams and Cooper were among 14 defendants charged, in a 39-count indictment, with conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. Both pleaded guilty. Based on prior offenses, the district court found Adams and Cooper to be career offenders, applied the U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 sentencing enhancement, and sentenced them to 165 months and 120 months of imprisonment, respectively. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the application and constitutionality, under the Sixth Amendment, of the career-offender guidelines. Adams’s Tennessee conviction of aggravated assault did not qualify as a crime of violence under the categorical approach, but court documents demonstrated that Adams necessarily pleaded guilty to a Class C felony. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Shepard was convicted of three counts of receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and one count of attempted receipt and was sentenced to 168 months in prison and five years on supervised release. The district court also imposed a $400 special assessment, ordered Shepard to pay $3,000 in restitution to a child victim, and imposed special conditions of supervision, prohibiting any access by Shepard to computers, cameras, or video equipment without prior written approval. The Sixth Circuit remanded for retrial, finding error in the court’s failure to replace a juror who asserted he would not view the pornographic images presented as evidence.View "United States v. Shepard" on Justia Law

McGuire was convicted of the kidnaping, rape, and aggravated murder of Joy Stewart and was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court summarized the evidence presented in mitigation and determined that the aggravating factors carried sufficient weight to support the sentence. Following sentencing, McGuire’s appellate counsel, which had not represented him at trial or at sentencing, did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the state appellate court affirmed the sentence of death. The Ohio Supreme Court deemed the claim forfeited. A federal district court denied a habeas petition and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. In a motion under FRCP 60(b), McGuire sought to re-open a claim asserting the ineffectiveness of trial counsel arising from their failure to adequately investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase of trial, relying upon the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision, Martinez v. Ryan, and arguing that the procedural default for this claim should be excused because his counsel on state post-conviction review was ineffective. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial. McGuire did not demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to justify relief from final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).View "McGuire v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst." on Justia Law

The Fillers planned to demolish an unused Chattanooga factory. They knew the site contained asbestos, a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Environmental Protection Agency regulations require removal of all asbestos before any demolition. Asbestos materials must be wetted, lowered to the ground, not dropped, labeled, and disposed of at an authorized site. Fillers hired AA, a certified asbestos surveying company, which estimated that it would cost $214,650 to remove the material safely. Fillers hired Mathis to demolish the factory in exchange for salvageable materials. Mathis was required to use a certified asbestos contractor. Mathis applied for an EPA demolition permit, showing an estimated amount of asbestos far less than in the AA survey. The agency’s asbestos coordinator contacted Fillers to verify the amount of asbestos. Fillers did not send the survey, but provided a revised estimate, far less than the survey’s estimate. After the permit issued, the asbestos contractor removed “[m]aybe, like, 1/100th” of the asbestos listed in the AA survey. Temporary laborers were hired, not equipped with protective gear or trained to remove asbestos. Fillers supervised. The work dispersed dust throughout the neighborhood. An employee of a daycare facility testified that the children were unable to play outside. Eventually, the EPA sent out an emergency response coordinator and declared the site an imminent threat. Mathis and Fillers were convicted of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371, and violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c). Fillers was also convicted of making a false statement, 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2), and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C.1519. The district court sentenced Mathis to 18 months’ imprisonment and Fillers to 44 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Mathis" on Justia Law

Hocker drank a six-pack of beer and drove to the home of his sometimes-girlfriend. A protective order directed Hocker not to go to her house. The woman called 911, reporting that Hocker was “highly intoxicated” and “suicidal” and that he had just left her home in a red Honda. Officers saw a red Honda with its headlights off speed past their police cruisers. They gave chase, using lights and sirens. Hocker denies seeing or hearing the officers during the seven-mile pursuit. After Hocker pulled off the road into a gravel driveway and stopped, the officers exited their cruisers with guns drawn and ordered Hocker to show his hands and turn off his car. Hocker put his vehicle in reverse, accelerating, and rammed a cruiser, moving it 30 feet. The officers opened fire on Hocker’s vehicle and forcibly removed a severely wounded Hocker from his car. After pleading guilty to wanton endangerment, fleeing or evading police, and driving under the influence, Hocker sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming excessive force. The district court rejected the claims on grounds of qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Hocker v. Pikeville City Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The FBI investigated Alwan, an Iraqi living in Bowling Green, after his fingerprints appeared on an improvised explosive device in Iraq, and introduced Alwan to a confidential source (CHS), who recorded their conversations. CHS convinced Alwan that he was part of a group supporting Jihad. Alwan assisted in sending what he believed to be money and weapons to the Mujahidin several times and eventually asked to lead the fictional terrorist cell. CHS instructed Alwan to recruit others. Hammadi agreed to join, stating that he had participated in IED attacks on American troops and had been arrested, but bribed his way free and fled to Syria. In Syria, he applied for refugee status to immigrate to the U.S. and answered “no” when asked if he had engaged in terrorist activity. Hammadi had moved to Bowling Green on the recommendation of Alwan, whose family he knew from Iraq and whom he had met in Syria. The two transported $100,000 from CHS to a truck, believing that it would find its way to Iraq, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A. They hid rocket-propelled grenade launchers, machine guns, plastic explosives, and sniper rifles in another truck, for transport to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B. They loaded Stinger missiles into another truck and plotted to murder a U.S. Army Captain. Hammadi pleaded guilty to 10 terrorism and two immigration offenses. Rejecting claims of entrapment and sentencing manipulation, the district court imposed a life sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that Hammadi would not qualify for a departure under either theory.View "United States v. Hammadi" on Justia Law

Off-duty Richmond Kentucky Police Officers visited the apartment of April McQueen by invitation, where the four adults engaged in sexual activity that “included bondage and discipline, dominance and submission and sadism and masochism.” Later, McQueen visited her neighbor, and, concerned about her appearance because she was going to meet another man, explained what had happened and asked for an ice pack or medicine for her bloodied, swollen mouth. The neighbor insisted, over McQueen’s reluctance, that the incident be reported. An investigation ensued, but McQueen refused to cooperate. Her account of the extent of her consent varied. She stated that she wanted to “forget the whole damn thing.” During grand jury testimony, McQueen stated that she allowed the men to urinate in her mouth only because one had slapped her and scared her with his aggressiveness: “That part was not consensual.” She testified that she was still scared. McQueen also testified about pressure being applied by Sheriff Department personnel. After they were found not guilty, the officers filed suit against those who had been involved in the investigation and prosecution. The district court dismissed claims against two prosecuting attorneys, on grounds of absolute and qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "Rogers v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

In 1993, Dixon and Hoffner beat their friend Hammer, tied him to a bed, stole his wallet and his vehicle, and then drove him into a remote area and buried him alive. One month into the investigation, Hoffner led police to Hammer’s body and Dixon provided a tape-recorded account of the kidnaping, robbery, and murder. At trial, Dixon presented no evidence and cross-examined only three of the government’s 15 witnesses. The jury convicted and recommended the death penalty, which the court imposed. Ohio courts rejected appeals and a post-conviction petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Dixon filed a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, improper exclusion of mitigating evidence at sentencing, and a violation of his Miranda rights. The district court denied the petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the state court thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewed the instructional error, and cured any error that may have occurred. Dixon presented no evidence of what his mitigation witnesses might have testified to and offered minimally helpful supporting affidavits. The state court’s conclusion that the exclusion of Dixon’s wrongful incarceration as a result of a prior false allegation was harmless was not contrary to clearly established federal law.View "Dixon v. Houk" on Justia Law