Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Charged with unlawful possession of a rifle, Tomlinson was represented by an Assistant Federal Public Defender. The venire included 36 prospective jurors. The court awarded Tomlinson 10 peremptory challenges and the government six. The court and counsel questioned the jurors. After each of three rounds consisting of “for cause” review, followed by peremptory challenges, both counsel stated that they had no objections to the strikes of the other party. In the fourth round, each party exercised its last peremptory strike. Tomlinson objected to the government’s strike against Jackson, an African American woman, stating: “I think we are going to bring a Batson challenge. I think all of the strikes by the government were African-Americans.” The court ruled that Tomlinson had waived any objection to the government’s first five strikes by failing to object earlier. After the prosecutor stated race-neutral reasons for striking Jackson, defense counsel renewed her objection and reiterated that all six of the government’s peremptory strikes were used against African Americans. The court analyzed Tomlinson’s objection only with respect to Jackson and explained why it was persuaded that the strike was not based on race. The trial continued and the jury convicted Tomlinson. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Tomlinson’s Batson objection was timely because he raised it before the jury was sworn and the trial commenced. View "United States v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

Five death-row inmates, housed in a maximum-security prison in Kentucky, filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a), which prohibits state and local governments from placing “a substantial burden” on the “religious exercise” of any inmate unless they establish that the burden furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and does so in the “least restrictive” way. They made various claims, some related to requests to practice their Native American faith, some related to a request for clergy visits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that there was a triable issue of fact over whether RLUIPA gives the inmates a right to have access to a sweat lodge for faith-based ceremonies and a triable issue of fact over whether RLUIPA gives the inmates a right to buffalo meat and other traditional foods for a faith-based once-a-year powwow? RLUIPA, however, does not permit inmates to collect money damages from prison officials sued in their individual capacities. View "Haight v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Wershe was 17 years and 10 months old when he was arrested in Detroit and charged with various drug crimes. He was convicted of possession with the intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine, and, in 1988, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. At sentencing, Wershe was 18 years and 7 months old. In 1992, the Michigan Supreme Court declared the life-without-parole penalty for simple possession unconstitutional. Wershe’s first opportunity for parole was denied in 2003. In 2012, the Parole Board determined that it had no interest in taking action on his case and scheduled Wershe’s next interview for 2017. Wershe brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Michigan Parole Board members, alleging that the parole consideration process did not afford him a meaningful opportunity for release in violation of his rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The district court sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of Wershe’s due-process claim, but vacated with respect to the Eight Amendment because the district court failed to consider the impact of Wershe’s youth at the time of the crime and his arrest. View "Wershe v. Combs" on Justia Law

Fields entered a guilty plea to racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. After a 28-day trial, Clinton and Lewis were convicted of multiple counts of racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and sentenced to life in prison. The Sixth Circuit upheld the convictions and sentences, finding that the government did not breach its plea agreement with Fields. Fields did not allege any unconstitutional motive by the prosecution in declining to move for a downward departure and the plea agreement made clear that not only was it within the government’s sole discretion to determine whether Fields provided substantial assistance, but also within its judgment to assess the “value, truthfulness and completeness of any assistance [] Fields offer[ed],” as well as whether Fields “committed or attempted to commit any additional crimes.” The seven-week trial was not marred by reversible error with respect to denial of a motion to sever or an alleged Brady violation. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

On the basis of a cooperating defendant's tip, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) task force set up surveillance along an interstate in eastern Kentucky, hoping to intercept members of a methamphetamine-trafficking operation. Detective Robert Hart, a task force member, found a car suspected of involvement with the operation. The detective trailed the automobile in an unmarked car, radioed a local officer (Adam Ray) and asked Officer Ray to initiate a traffic stop on the basis of a traffic violation. Detective Hart told Officer Ray only that the car was suspected of being linked to a DEA drug investigation. Officer Ray initiated the stop and discovered the Tahoe's driver, Defendant-Appellant, Marcus Adkins, and one passenger, Defendant-Appellant, Courtney Junior Noble. Adkins gave Officer Ray permission to search the car. The officer found several baggies of methamphetamine, a pipe used for smoking drugs, and a handgun on Noble's person. He arrested Noble and Adkins. In addition, the task force used this evidence to obtain a search warrant for a motel room suspected of being a way station for the traffickers. In the room, the task force found Defendant-Appellant Dena Brooks, pills, and a scale for weighing drugs. A grand jury indicted all three on charges of possession with intent to sell methamphetamine and conspiracy to sell methamphetamine; it also indicted Noble on a gun charge. Noble moved to suppress the evidence found as a result of Officer Ray's frisk. Adkins and Brooks joined this motion, which the district court denied in full after holding a hearing. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Officer Ray lacked sufficient particularized and objective indicia to believe that Noble was armed and dangerous. As a result, the Court reversed the district court's denial of Noble's motion to suppress, vacated his conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Because the government never objected to, and explicitly waived an argument related to, Adkins's and Brooks' lack of standing to challenge Officer Ray's frisk of Noble, the Court also reversed the district court's denial of their motions to suppress, vacated their convictions, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Noble" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Marquis Heard of numerous drug and money-laundering offenses after a three-day trial in which Heard represented himself. He argued on appeal to the Sixth Circuit was that the district court was obligated to proceed with a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. Heard also argued that his decision to represent himself was not voluntary. After review of the district court record, the Sixth Circuit rejected his arguments and affired. View "United States v. Heard" on Justia Law

In 2003, at the age of 13 or 14, Hackett helped form the LSP street gang on the south side of Youngstown, Ohio. Eight years later, a federal grand jury indicted Hackett and 22 others for RICO conspiracy and many other crimes. Most of his codefendants pled guilty, but Hackett and four co-defendants proceeded to trial. A jury convicted Hackett of conspiracy under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act, 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(5), retaliation against a government witness, 18 U.S.C. 1513(a)(1)(B), and various other weapons and narcotics charges. The district court sentenced him to 440 months’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims of Batson violations and insufficiency of the evidence, but remanded for resentencing, finding that Hackett’s mandatory-minimum sentence on a firearms count was imposed in violation of the 2013 Supreme Court decision, Alleyne v. United States. The indictment charged only that Hackett “use[d] and carr[ied]” a firearm during and in relation to the predicate crime of violence, not that he “discharged” the firearm as well; post-Alleyne, “use and carry” and “discharge” are two different offenses under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). View "United States v. Hackett" on Justia Law

McMullan and Smith, friends of 30 years, were related by marriage. They were addicts. During a drug-related fight, McMullan snatched a revolver from his wife and pointed the gun one foot from Smith’s chest. The gun fired. Smith later died from the gunshot wound to the chest. When witness McDowell testified at trial, he had a pending cocaine charge. Because McDowell had denied ever using crack cocaine at a preliminary hearing, McMullan’s counsel sought to cross-examine him about the charge to impeach McDowell’s credibility. The trial court denied the request. The court instructed the jury on the first-degree murder charge and on second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. McMullan's requested involuntary-manslaughter instruction was denied. Convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and as a felon in possession of a firearm, McMullan was determined to be a fourth-felony habitual offender. The court in McDowell’s case granted the government’s motion to downgrade McDowell’s cocaine charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. McMullan’s counsel unsuccessfully sought a new trial because of McDowell’s plea deal. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected arguments relating to the involuntary-manslaughter instruction; counsel’s failure to cross-examine McDowell about the plea bargain; and failure to disclose the plea agreement. The Michigan Supreme Court granted affirmed on the sole issue of the jury instruction was warranted. McMullan unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments relating to the jury instruction and the plea agreement. View "McMullan v. Booker" on Justia Law

Following a string of armed robberies in the Lansing area, Ford, Perdue, Nathan, and Henry were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1951; multiple counts of robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1951; and multiple counts of possessing and brandishing or discharging a firearm in furtherance of both the conspiracy and a robbery count, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Ford and Perdue were convicted of all charges. Ford was sentenced to 1,392 months of imprisonment; Perdue was sentenced to 1,464 months. Nathan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce and was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment; Henry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce and was sentenced to 150 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentences and convictions, rejecting challenges the admission of evidence regarding gang affiliation and the impact of the robbery on a witness to the crime; to the district court’s limitation on cross-examination of a government witness regarding his exculpatory out-of-court statements; and to the introduction of non-testifying codefendant Perdue’s out-of-court statement. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Toviave immigrated to the U.S. in 2001, and, using false immigration documents, later brought four young relatives from Togo to live with him. He made the children cook, clean, and do laundry. He occasionally made the children babysit for his girlfriend and relatives. Toviave would beat the children if they misbehaved or failed to follow rules. Toviave provided for the children by working two jobs and did yard work. Toviave bought the children sports equipment and let them play soccer. The children exercised with him and went on family trips together. Toviave emphasized education; many of his punishments stemmed from problems related to schoolwork. He hired a tutor to teach the children English. He imposed mandatory study periods. The children always attended school. Teachers began to suspect abuse. Michigan authorities investigated. The children were removed from the house. The Department of Homeland Security obtained a warrant and discovered false immigration documents in Toviave’s home. Toviave pled guilty to visa and mail fraud charges, and the government dropped a human trafficking charge. Toviave was convicted of four counts of forced labor, 18 U.S.C. 1589. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that Toviave’s treatment of the children was “reprehensible,” but was not forced labor. View "United States v. Toviave" on Justia Law