Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to charges under 18 U.S.C. 2252 of possessing and receiving child pornography, then appealed denial of a motion to suppress photographs and videos that were discovered on his laptop computer during a consent search of his residence for controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and other material or records pertaining to narcotics. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The âknock and talkâ procedure is a legitimate investigative technique for obtaining a suspectâs consent to a search and the defendant did voluntarily consent. The officer told the college-educated defendant that he could refuse consent or stop the search and the defendant knew that the police had enough evidence to get a warrant. The search of the computer and external drive were within the scope of the consent; the defendant did not object or withdraw consent during the search. The computer was searched after marijuana was found and for the purpose of finding information about the defendantâs marijuana growing operation.

After being arrested and deported twice, the defendant was again arrested and entered a plea of guilty to unlawful re-entry under 8 U.S.C. 1326. The district court imposed a sentence of 96 months of incarceration; 59 months longer than the guidelines maximum. The Sixth Circuit remanded. Without holding a hearing, the district court again imposed a 96-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit again vacated and remanded. On a general remand, the defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing at which he may exercise the right to be present and allocute as provided by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; when a plenary resentencing hearing is held, the district court must state, in open court, the reasons underlying the imposed sentence. The court declined a request for assignment to a different trial judge.

After accepting a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. 922), and being sentenced to 70 months imprisonment, the defendant challenged the courtâs denial of a motion to suppress. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded for re-calculation of the criminal history category for sentencing. The officer had specific and articulable facts, under the totality of the circumstances, to justify stopping the defendant to investigate whether he committed a robbery. The court noted proximity in time and geography, the description of the car, and the defendantâs efforts to accelerate away from the police. Regardless of the justification for the stop, the gun was in plain sight of the officers who responded to a call for backup after the defendant ran into a building. The gun was on the floor of the vehicle, parked near the sidewalk, outside the cartilage of the house, and its incriminating nature was immediately apparent. In calculating the sentence, the court incorrectly considered incarceration pending a determination of whether the defendant violated parole on another offense.

The defendant, a Mexican citizen charged with drug trafficking, money laundering, and operating a continuing criminal enterprise, made pre-trial motions to reconsider his assertion that he was a juvenile; for an order to depose witnesses in Mexico concerning his age; and to enlarge his time to appeal the earlier denial. The district court denied all three. The Sixth Circuit rejected an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied a writ of mandamus. Denials of the motions did not constitute immediately-reviewable final orders or collateral orders. Whether the defendant is a juvenile is a factual issue.