Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress. The government argued that the police had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was violating several of Missouri's gun laws and contended that, in any event, the police acted reasonably under the community caretaker doctrine. In this instance, officers responded to a call about a gun falling out of the pocket of a man sleeping outside of a bus station. Unlike most typical Fourth Amendment encounters, the governmental interest in vindicating the officers' actions here was not encompassed in the enforcement of criminal statutes but, instead, in the officers' obligation to help those in danger and to protect property. Under the circumstances, the officers' decision to handcuff defendant until they could safely awaken him and obtain more information was reasonable. Finally, the scope and duration of the intrusion were also reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of receipt of materials involving the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) and three counts of possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). The court concluded that the three possessions counts listed in the indictment were multiplicitous because they charged the same crime; because defendant received concurrent sentences on all of his convictions, a remand with directions that the convictions on two of the three possession counts be vacated rendered a new trial unnecessary; the court rejected defendant's argument that the jury erred in convicting him on the receipt count because it returned a guilty verdict on both the receipt offense; even assuming that the jury's verdict was ambiguous, the district court took remedial measures by polling the jury and it eliminated any threat of double counting by entering judgment of conviction only on the greater receipt offense; and jury Instruction No. 9 did not constructively amend the indictment because it fairly captured the production element of the crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Emly" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, defendant appealed his sentence of 120 months imprisonment. Defendant argued that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by failing adequately to explain a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court concluded that the failure-to-explain contention was frivolous where the district court's explanation of its upward variance was more than sufficient. The court also concluded that there was no abuse of the district court's wide sentencing discretion and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing wiretap transcripts to be used to assist the jury where there was more than sufficient evidence to support the identification of defendant's voice on the records; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior offenses under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) where defendant put his intent and knowledge of the drug conspiracy at issue; the district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b); the district court correctly imposed a life sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b); and there was no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wiggins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his person. The court concluded that, considering Missouri law, and based on the call that there was an individual carrying a concealed weapon that had exited the bus, the officers had reason to believe criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, given the facts of this case, the additional information provided the moderate indicia of reliability necessary to support reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that state officials in the WRDCC's Offenders Under Treatmet Program (OUTP) violated his rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff, as an atheist, participated in OUTP, which "had required meetings [and] invoked religious tenets by using the serenity prayer and religious meditations." Plaintiff eventually left the program and believed that he was denied an early release on parole for failure to complete OUTP. The court concluded that whether plaintiff's withdrawal from the program was indeed voluntary or was the result of coercion was yet to be determined; therefore, dismissal on this ground was premature; plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to state a claim that a parole stipulation requiring him to attend and complete a substance abuse program with religious content in order to be eligible for early parole violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to show that the personal involvement required for Defendants Crawford and Salsbury to bear section 1983 liability. As to Defendant Burgess, at this stage of the litigation, he has not. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Nixon, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that defendant waived any claim that he was "forced" to stipulate that he lived at the residence at issue where a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the district court's statement about a co-conspirator where the district court's curative instructions to the jury purged any prejudicial effect; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial; and the government did not improperly vouch for the credibility of two witnesses during closing argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sevilla-Acosta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, suffering from high-blood pressure, filed suit claiming that he became partially blind after treatment was delayed while in the Faulkner County, Arkansas jail. The court concluded that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's medical-screening claim where there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening when admitted to a detention center and where he had less obvious signs of a serious medical condition; the County was was entitled to summary judgment on the medical-screening claim; at best, plaintiff's experts showed that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin should have known that they were committing malpractice - but malpractice was not deliberate indifference; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether medication should have been prescribed after several high blood-pressure readings; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether they should have responded sooner to the missing medication at issue; at most, Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were negligent, but deliberate indifference was more even than gross negligence; and since the County's prescription-delivery system may not be inextricably intertwined with Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin's treatment of plaintiff, the court lacked jurisdiction over the County's appeal. Accordingly, the court reversed judgment as to Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin on all claims, and as to the County on the medical-screening and delay-in-treatment claims. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the claim against the County for delay in delivery, remanding for further proceedings. View "Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Horton and Holmes were convicted of multiple crimes stemming from their involvement in a cocaine-distribution ring. The court concluded that some of defendants' arguments were waived because they failed to raise them at the pretrial suppression hearing and also failed to raise these arguments at trial; because defendants failed to show that the Government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland when it excluded fingerprint comparisons at trial, their claim failed; the Government's use of its confidential informant failed to establish a due process claim where the informant's misconduct could not be attributed to the Government; the Government did not impermissibly intimidate Horton's witness to keep her from testifying; Horton's allegation that DEA agents stole approximately $9,000 from his residence while executing a search warrant was not sufficient to support defendants' claim of outrageous government conduct that violated their right to due process; the district court did not err in failing to hold a Remmer hearing to investigate the possibility that a juror may have overheard a conversation between Holmes's defense counsel and Holmes's family; defendants failed to show that the Western District of Missouri's juror selection plan violated the fair-cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment; and the court rejected Holmes's three separate arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a house. The court concluded that the officers' entry into the home was justified because they possessed multiple arrest warrants and reasonably believed defendant resided at and was present in the house before the officers observed defendant through the tinted window. As such, the court need not address defendant's contention that the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally because one of the officers pressed his face against a tinted window to see inside the home. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law