Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), was sentenced to 113 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the court's refusal to exclude evidence regarding gang affiliation. The evidence was admissible to show the defense witness's bias in favor of his fellow gang member. The court attempted to reduce prejudicial impact by directing that the proper name of the gang not be used, denying admissibility of gang tattoos, and reserving the ultimate question of admissibility until after hearing direct examination of the witness. The court directed that the government could ask questions on the subject only if the defense witness first raised it. The jury was instructed that membership in a street gang could not be considered in finding that defendant was more or less likely to have committed the charged offense.

Petitioner, serving a 60-year sentence for attempted murder, burglary-battery, and bail jumping, received full collateral review by federal courts, and his first application under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) for permission for a second collateral attack was denied. Intending to file a second 2244(b) application, he asked to be excused for untimely filing and for an order requiring the prison to allow him expanded use of the copier. The court rejected those claims, but exercised its discretion to excuse petitioner from compliance with Rule 22.2(a)(4) and (5), requiring submission of copies of documents from prior cases, and Appellate Rule 21(d), requiring submission of multiple copies of pleadings. Analysis of timeliness must wait for the papers to which the question applies. Petitioner adequately alleged that prison action frustrated his attempt to file an application, but did not identify underlying legal claims frustrated by the delay.

While the FBI executed a search warrant at his father’s business, officers looked for defendant at his father’s house. They climbed to the deck and, through a window, saw defendant asleep, with a pill bottle nearby. They telephoned the father and stated, incorrectly, that the bottle was next to defendant. The father gave permission to enter. Officers woke defendant and began questioning. He stated he had child pornography on a laptop in his car and agreed to provide evidence from his apartment, though agents told him that he did not have to do so. Driving to the apartment with officers, he used his cell phone. His father told him not to talk. After entering the apartment, agents read defendant his Miranda rights. He admitted operating a server for child pornography, having pornography on his computer, and transferring child pornography to an external drive. He signed consent forms, after being advised that he could refuse the search. The district court suppressed evidence and statements obtained in the father's home and car ride, but did not suppress evidence obtained at the apartment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Apartment evidence was sufficiently attenuated from the original illegal entry that it was purged of unconstitutional taint.

A fight broke out during a New Year's party at a pub. Several patrons were wounded and a security guard was killed. Plaintiff, an off-duty police officer whose wife was a manager at the pub, was present and was later arrested. After the charges were dropped, he sued for false arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983). The district court denied defendant's motion for a finding of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed. While there was not "arguable probable cause" for the murder charge, the charge of assisting a criminal was supported by the plaintiff's "hazy" and changing account of events and a videotape of events.

For about seven years, defendant aided undocumented immigrants in filing claims for Illinois unemployment benefits, charging a fee of $80 plus one benefit check, and using social security numbers of unsuspecting, law-abiding citizens. She arranged with a state employee to process the applications as though the undocumented aliens were citizens. She was convicted of eight counts of mail fraud and sentenced to 96 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed application of sentencing guideline enhancements: for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, for unauthorized use of any means of identification unlawfully to produce or obtain any other means of identification, and for an offense with 50 or more victims.

Defendant was convicted as felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), a user in possession of a firearm, 922(g)(3), and possession of marijuana and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 844(a). The Seventh Circuited affirmed, upholding the court's decision to permit an FBI agent and an Illinois state trooper to testify as both expert and fact witnesses. The trooper's challenged testimony did not rise to the level of expert opinion. The court took precautions with respect to the FBI agent: the government laid a proper foundation; defendant had full opportunity to cross-examine; most of the government's questions eliciting expert testimony signaled to the jury that the agent was relying on his expertise; and the court gave the standard jury instruction for opinion testimony requiring special knowledge or skill, informing the jurors that they could disregard the testimony and give it whatever weight they thought it deserved.

In 2008, acting on a tip, police obtained a warrant and raided a house where defendant and others were staying. After apprehending defendant on his way out, police searched and found a pistol and a crack cocaine close to defendant's personal effects in a room where he was alleged to be staying. He was convicted of possessing more than five grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)) and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the firearm conviction and vacated the drug convictions. The court upheld admission of evidence that defendant had the pistol in his possession two months earlier. The officers could rely in good faith on issuance of the search warrant. The court improperly admitted evidence of a 2000 conviction for felony possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of the character evidence prohibition of Rule 404(b).

Defendant and fellow gang members were tried for racketeering conspiracy. The others were convicted, but the court declared a mistrial as to defendant. When his retrial case was given to the jury, the government submitted a redacted indictment, removing allegations against former co-defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, rejecting an argument that the redacted indictment violated the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The redacted indictment did not broaden the possible bases for conviction nor did it remove any allegations needed for conviction.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm despite his status as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and was sentenced, as a "career offender," to 100 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed use of his Indiana conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery as a predicate "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. The court noted that the Guidelines contain different language than the Armed Career Criminal Act, under which a "violent felony" is an offense in which violence is an element. An application note concerning inchoate offenses is unique to the Guidelines.

Defendants plotted with others to rob a cocaine stash house at gunpoint, but the stash house did not actually exist, and their partners were an undercover agent and a paid informant. The informant, Ringswald, generated most of the evidence against them and played a significant role at their trials, but, although available, was not called by prosecutors to testify. The government introduced his story through recordings and narrative from investigators. Prosecutors asserted that none of his out-of-court statements was offered for its truth. Defendants were convicted of drug and gun charges. Each was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While the handling of Ringswald's statements, some of them "obvious hearsay," raise concerns about the Confrontation Clause, any error was harmless in light of "overwhelming evidence."