Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Alman and Barnes are gay domestic partners. Alman was arrested in Westland, Michigan in 2007, during an undercover police operation in Hix Park, while taking a break from helping his mother move to a nearby apartment building. When officers arrived at the park, they observed Alman sitting on a picnic bench. A decoy officer sat down and struck up a conversation with Alman. The nature of the conversation and subsequent physical contact between the two is disputed. Alman was arrested; the charges were ultimately dropped. The car he was driving, which belonged to Barnes, was towed and impounded. In Alman’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that probable cause existed for the state and municipal offenses charged. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that there was no probable cause supporting any of the charges brought against Alman; that the officer was not shielded by qualified immunity; and that Alman had not stated a claim for malicious prosecution, for failure to train, or for abuse of process. View "Alman v. Reed" on Justia Law

Ross and Burston were indicted for conspiracy to utter counterfeit securities and substantive counts related to the conspiracy. They gave counterfeit “official checks,” purportedly issued by Comerica Bank, to private vehicle owners and quickly resold the cars. Ross conceived the scheme and was primarily responsible for orchestrating it. Burston sold several vehicles. Before trial, Ross exhibited bizarre, paranoid behavior, causing withdrawal of three court-appointed attorneys. While represented by the third attorney, Ross moved to represent himself. The government sought a competency examination. The court denied the motions, with no finding as to Ross’s ability to represent himself, but later granted Ross’s motion and appointed standby counsel. The court subsequently held a competency hearing based on the report of a court-appointed psychologist and its own observations and found Ross competent to stand trial. A fourth attorney was appointed as standby counsel. Ross was sentenced to 60 months for conspiracy and 78 months for each substantive count, to be served concurrently. Burston was convicted of conspiracy, acquitted of the substantive count, and sentenced to 30 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to Burston, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Ross was unconstitutionally deprived of representation during his competency hearing.View "United States v. Burston" on Justia Law

Jones shot Lipford four times in a Memphis parking lot, and Lipford’s car was taken. The prosecution argued that the incident was a robbery and carjacking, while Jones and Washington described a drug deal gone bad and denied taking the vehicle. The jury found Washington guilty of carjacking without serious bodily injury and the court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. The jury returned guilty verdicts against Jones for carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a carjacking. The court sentenced him to 210 months in prison for the first count and 120 months for the second count. He was given sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice (perjury) and for the infliction of a permanent or life-threatening injury. Both defendants’ sentences are within the guidelines. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly disallowed impeachment questioning on the basis of the victim-witness’s prior conviction for theft of services, because that crime did not involve a dishonest act for purposes of Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2). The district court did not abuse its discretion in its responses to jury questions or in its sentencing determinations. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Carpenter pled guilty to the charge of failing to appear for sentencing (18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(1)). The district court sentenced him to 13 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. At the sentencing hearing, the court did not orally pronounce the conditions of supervision, and Carpenter’s counsel raised no objection to the imposed sentence. On the same day, in a written judgment, the court outlined conditions of supervised release. Special Condition 1 provides: The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for substance abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer, and shall pay a portion of the cost according to his ability, as determined by the probation officer. Rejecting a claim that the condition constituted an impermissible delegation of judicial authority, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Dawson hit his girlfriend and pointed a gun at her son, threatening to kill them. Police responded and saw Dawson discarding a stolen firearm. Dawson was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g), and possession of a stolen firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(j). Dawson moved to exclude testimony regarding the altercation. The trial court granted the motion to the extent of excluding references to “aggravated assault.” It instructed the jury that it could convict based on either actual or constructive possession. Dawson did not object to the instructions. Dawson argued that he should not be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), because a 1993 conviction for attempted rape did not qualify as a violent felony and two 1988 convictions for violent felonies should count as only one predicate because they were based on a single event. The district court concluded that the 1993 conviction, a 2001 conviction for aggravated burglary, and one of the 1988 convictions qualified and, on remand, sentenced Dawson to 180 months, the ACCA statutory minimum, then denied a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, based on the admission of the assault evidence, the constructive possession instruction, and ineffective assistance. The Sixth Circuit rejected his appeal. View "Dawson v. United States" on Justia Law

Police officers and an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, on patrol in an unmarked car, observed that Defendant’s SUV did not have a front license plate, as required by Ohio law. They followed Defendant to the parking lot of an apartment complex where Defendant’s fiancé and children were known to reside. Defendant had already exited and had begun walking toward the building when the officers pulled up, turned on their lights, and ordered Defendant to turn around. Defendant walked back to his vehicle, and the officers could see that he was not carrying any weapons. Officers claim Defendant told them to “go ahead” and search; an officer immediately noticed a gun barrel behind the center console. Defendant was arrested for improper handling of a firearm in a vehicle and read his Miranda rights. Defendant had previously been convicted of bank fraud, for which he was serving supervised release. Defendant was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and sentenced to 41 months for the firearm conviction plus 12 months to be served consecutively for the violation of supervised release. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cochrane" on Justia Law

In 1988, Thompson was murdered in Detroit. Bell was found guilty of felony murder and possessing a firearm while committing a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal he argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to interview two alibi witnesses and present them at trial. The conviction was affirmed on the merits by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1992 and the state supreme court denied review. In 2006 Bell sought habeas corpus. Counsel was appointed and, while investigating, found what was believed to be material, relevant evidence not disclosed by the prosecution, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted a stay and Michigan courts denied Bell’s claims on the merits. The district court granted Bell’s petition with regard to Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court did not properly defer to the trial court with respect to the alleged Brady violation and that Bell did not prove that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty. Equitable tolling was not appropriate; Bell’s ineffective-assistance claim remains precluded by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. View "Bell v. Howe" on Justia Law

The affidavit for a warrant for Fields’s arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault noted that arrest would be without bond. Three days later, Fields turned himself in. During booking, Fields requested to post bail. Told that he could not do so until the next day, Fields demanded to speak to a judge. There is no right under Tennessee law to post bail immediately after arrest. The Sheriff incorrectly stated that Fields had to be detained for 12 hours because he was charged with domestic assault. Under Tennessee law, domestic violence defendants must be held for 12 hours only if the official authorized to release the arrestee “finds that the offender is a threat to the alleged victim.” No such finding was made. The county admits that it had a policy of placing a 12-hour hold on all persons arrested for domestic violence regardless of individual circumstances. The next morning, a judge set bail and imposed conditions. Ten months later, prosecutors dropped the charge. Fields sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail and his right to procedural due process. The district court granted Henry County for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Fields v. Henry Cnty." on Justia Law

Moore voluntarily surrendered to Detroit police in connection with a shooting homicide. He asked an officer to call a number on an attorney’s business card. The officer called and reached an answering service and so informed Moore. Moore indicated he wanted to make a statement and signed a waiver of rights. The officer questioned Moore, who made an incriminating statement. There was no clear subsequent request for an attorney. The statement was admitted at trial, over Moore’s objections. Moore was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, being a felon in possession, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life, three to five years, and two years imprisonment, respectively. His conviction was affirmed; Michigan courts denied his post-conviction motion. Moore sought federal habeas corpus. The district court denied his petition. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Michigan court unreasonably found a waiver absent a factual finding, and despite evidence to the contrary, that Moore, not the officer, had reinitiated communications. The trial court effectively required that Moore assert his right to counsel a second time in order to secure it. The error was not harmless. View "Moore v. Bell" on Justia Law

Campbell and Gemperline were attacked on different dates by a canine unit police dog (Spike). They filed suit under 42 U.S.C 1983 against the canine’s handler, the chief of police, and the city, alleging excessive force, failure to supervise, failure to properly train, and state law claims for assault and battery. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Prior to both bite incidents, the handler notified supervisors that he had been unable to keep up with maintenance training and repeatedly requested that they allow him time to attend training sessions, but his requests were denied. Spike’s state certifications lapsed for several months. There was evidence that Spike was involved in biting incidents with growing frequency in the first three years of his deployment in the field. A jury could also reasonably conclude that the handler acted in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, based on the plaintiffs’ allegations about his conduct and statements at the time of the attacks. View "Campbell v. City of Springboro" on Justia Law