Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On October 29, 1994, people, including Gover, congregated at a house from which Ratliff and Hunter sold marijuana to discuss a robbery. Ratliff believed that “Ricky” and the stolen items could be found nearby. Ratliff and Hunter got in the front seat of a vehicle. Witnesses testified that the backseat occupants were Catchings and Gover. The car traveled to a house where people on the porch said that Ricky was not there. As the car left, a gun fired from the rear passenger window. Two people sustained non-fatal injuries, but a bullet killed nine-year-old Michelle. Witnesses testified that Gover said that he shot because someone laughed at him. The Lannette house was later fired upon. Officers detained Hunter and Ratliff. Ratliff implicated Gover. Officer Johnson testified to Ratliff’s statement. Officer Jamison testified to what he observed and what occupants told him about the shooting. Gover was sentenced to 60-100 years and unsuccessfully appealed and challenged rulings in Michigan courts. He filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The district court held that, while its introduction violated Gover’s Sixth Amendment rights, Johnson’s testimony relaying Ratliff’s statement was harmless and that Jamison’s testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Gover v. Perry" on Justia Law

Hatcher is appealing his conviction for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. He moved to file his appendix under seal to prevent the public disclosure of personal identifying information. The government has not responded. The Sixth Circuit granted the motion in part, noting that the record contains limited redactable material. While documents filed in the appeals court generally must be made available to the public, documents sealed in the district court must continue under seal, 6th Cir. R. 25(h)(5). Documents whose privacy protection was governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 are governed by the same rule on appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5). Rule 49.1 permits redaction of certain personal identifying information, including social security numbers and home addresses, but does not permit redaction of court filings related to certain charging documents in criminal matters. The appendix at issue contains exhibits that were admitted during Hatcher’s sentencing hearing, but are not included in the record on appeal that apparently were not sealed before the district court and contain limited references to information permitted to be redacted under Rule 49.1. View "United States v. Hatcher" on Justia Law

Taylor owned a convenience store. In 2008, the store received authorization to redeem benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federally funded program providing nutritional assistance to needy individuals. In 2010-2011, the USDA conducted an undercover operation. Taylor allowed undercover police officers and confidential informants working under USDA special agents to redeem SNAP benefits for cash that Taylor knew would be used to purchase illegal drugs. Taylor once exchanged a firearm for SNAP benefits. Taylor pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., SNAP fraud, drug distribution, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on the firearm conviction and Taylor’s criminal history, the probation officer recommended an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), resulting in a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenced Taylor to 188 months. Graves, a friend of Taylor’s, worked in the store and would stand outside the store and either sell drugs to people who redeemed benefits for cash or tell them where to find drugs. Graves also sold an informant a firearm and split the proceeds with Taylor’s wife. The district court sentenced Graves to 200 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Following a 2000 shooting death in Nashville, Robins was convicted of first-degree, premeditated murder in state trial court. The appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming ineffective assistance. The state trial court found that counsel’s representation was not deficient or prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was amended and then dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Robins did not demonstrate that the state appellate court’s decision was unreasonable or improper under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 deference. View "Robins v. Fortner" on Justia Law

An alleged methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution conspiracy in eastern Tennessee involved 49 indicted defendants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a), 846. Miller pleaded guilty and challenged her sentence. Beals and Ambrose were convicted and appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that the district court improperly denied a pretrial suppression motion and mid-trial request for the government to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The government challenged Ambrose’s 168-month sentence as unlawful in light of Abbott v.United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010). The Seventh Circuit dismissed Miller’s appeal as waived by the plea agreement; affirmed Beals’s convictions; but vacated Ambrose’s sentence. Abbott covers Ambrose’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and the district court erred in declining to impose a consecutive minimum sentence of five years for the conviction. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Zobel engaged in sexually explicit online chats with numerous minor females from around the country. Zobel resided in Michigan, and a minor female, J.C., resided in Ohio. Zobel persuaded J.C. to perform oral sex on him. Zobel either knew that J.C. was under 16 years of age or recklessly disregarded her age. J.C. was 13 years old. J.C. informed Zobel that she and B.B., had run away from home. J.C. informed Zobel that B.B. was 14 years old; B.B. was actually 12 years old. Zobel drove to Ohio and took the girls to a parking garage, where they performed sexual acts and he took pictures. He pled guilty under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and the district court imposed a sentence of 150 months of imprisonment, a 15 month upward variance from the upper-end of the Guidelines range. The court imposed special conditions of supervised release for life, which prohibit Zobel from having contact with minors absent prior judicial approval, loitering in areas where children tend to congregate, and possessing or viewing pornography or materials that are “sexually explicit or suggestive.” The Sixth Circuit vacated the special condition that bans possessing or accessing “sexually suggestive” materials and affirmed the remainder of the sentence. View "United States v. Zobel" on Justia Law

A 1998 neighborhood shooting in Detroit resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male bystander and injury to two other bystanders, a 21-year-old male and a nine-year-old female. A year later, a Michigan state court convicted 22-year-old Blackmon of second-degree murder, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, and two assaults with intent to do great bodily harm. The court sentenced him to 40 to 60 years on the murder count, concurrent three-to-10 year terms on the assault counts, and a consecutive two-year term on the firearm count. Eleven years later, a federal district court on collateral review (28 U.S.C. 2254) held that Michigan had deprived Blackmon of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus and told Michigan to retry him. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The prosecution’s elicitation of, and comment upon, testimony regarding Blackmon’s gang affiliation did not render his trial so unfair as to result in a denial of federal due process; it did not result in a decision that “involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” View "Blackmon v. Booker" on Justia Law

In 1994 Nathan was discovered in a hotel room, having suffered severe trauma to her head. Her jewelry was missing. Nathan died that afternoon. Police investigated three hotel employees who had prior criminal histories, eventually focusing on Jones. Police discovered that Jones had injured his hand on the day Nathan was killed and had filed a claim for workers’ compensation for an injury classified as a fist-to-mouth injury. Jones stated that he hurt his hand cleaning a banquet room. A search of Jones’s car produced Nathan’s pendant and a master key to the hotel. A jury convicted Jones on aggravated felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, and recommended the death penalty. The Ohio Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence. Jones unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief and, in 2001, filed an unsuccessful habeas petition in federal district court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the state trial court improperly admitted evidence that Jones exercised his right to counsel; that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to discover the withheld evidence; and that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate a history of crime at the hotel.View "Jones v. Bagley" on Justia Law

In 2001, Bridges was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; the court did not impose a term of incarceration, but sentenced him to one year of probation. In 2010, Bridges was indicted for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). Bridges moved to dismiss, arguing that he qualified for one of the exceptions to the firearm restriction, listed in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). The district court denied the motion and sentenced Bridges to 21 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. An individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is prohibited from possessing a firearm, except that a “person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense . . . if the conviction . . . is an offense for which the person . . . has had civil rights restored.” Under Michigan law, misdemeanants lose their civil rights only while confined in a correctional facility, Mich. Comp. Laws 168.758b.The Supreme Court has held that the “civil rights restored” clause in an analogous provision does not apply to an offender such as Bridges who lost no civil rights. View "United States v. Bridges" on Justia Law

In 1997, 19-year-old Franklin beat his grandmother, grandfather, and uncle, set the house on fire and left them to die of blunt-force injuries or smoke inhalation. Franklin fled the scene in his grandfather’s car, taking his grandfather’s gun and his grandmother’s jewelry. The trial court found him competent; the jury found Franklin guilty on: seven aggravated arsons, two aggravated robberies, and six aggravated murders. The trial court sentenced Franklin to death and 91 years of imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court merged the escaping-detection aggravator into the aggravated-robbery and aggravated-arson aggravators then independently reweighed aggravation and mitigation before determining that death was the appropriate sentence. The district court denied a petition for habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims: challenging the pretrial competency hearing and determination of competency; alleging ineffective assistance; challenging denial of a continuance after a defense arson expert died before testifying; challenging admission of “gruesome” photographs; that execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and would violate his Equal Protection and Due Process rights because he committed the crimes when he was mentally ill; and that the definition of “reasonable doubt” given in the guilt-phase jury instructions was constitutionally inadequate.