Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, petitioned for a writ of mandamus of prohibition directed to the district court in an underlying civil action concerning Missouri's method for carrying out the death penalty. A three-judge panel of the court granted a writ with respect to discovery of the identity of the physician at issue, but denied a writ as to discovery of the identities of the pharmacy at issue and the laboratory at issue. On rehearing en banc, the court concluded that a writ should issue to vacate the orders requiring discovery of all three identities. It was clear and indisputable that the discovery ordered by the district court was not relevant to any claim that should survive a motion to dismiss and that the Director had no other adequate means to attain the relief he desired. Although denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily was not appealable, a writ of mandamus to correct an erroneous denial could be warranted in extraordinary circumstances where continued litigation would have significant unwarranted consequences. Discovery orders likewise were not ordinarily appealable, but mandamus could issue in extraordinarily circumstances to forbid discovery of irrelevant information where discovery would be oppressive and interfere with important state interests. These propositions taken together, along with the availability of alternative means for the Director to attain relief, lead the court to conclude that a writ should issue. View "In re: George Lombardi" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. The court concluded that defendant's conviction for first-degree battery under Arkansas Code Annotated 5-1-201(a)(3) was not a crime of violence under the force clause because the crime can be violated by reckless driving and defendant's conviction was also not a crime of violence under the residual clause because subsection (3) was not similar in kind or degree of risk to the enumerated crimes. Accordingly, defendant lacked the two predicate crimes of violence needed to qualify as a career offender. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. There was no reason to allow the government to expand the record on remand because the government had a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence. View "United States v. Boose" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his residence where the search had not occurred until after the warrant had been executed; affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal where a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant was the sole occupant of the residence and his dominion over the premises was sufficient to establish constructive possession, and that defendant intended to distribute the crack cocaine found in his residence; and the admission into evidence of an out-of-court statement did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights where the statement was not hearsay. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm. Because defendant was unable to establish that there was any government involvement or inducement relevant to the instant charge, the court need not address whether defendant was predisposed to engage in the relevant conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense. View "United States v. Ardrey" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2251(e). The court concluded that the district court properly interpreted the word "uses" in section 2251(a) and correctly overruled defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court also concluded that defendant's 220-month sentence was substantively reasonable. Because nothing in the record indicated that the sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime, defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vanhorn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for thirteen counts of federal tax related offenses. The court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court committed error in dismissing two jurors because the record sufficiently disclosed the district court's reason for replacing each juror; defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have not been implicated as no witness or evidence against defendant was presented when the district court dismissed the jurors; the replacement of the jurors occurred before the case was sent to the jury for deliberations, and there was no indication that the remaining jurors were adversely influenced by the district court's decision to replace each juror; and there was no prejudice where counsel was informed. The district court did abuse its discretion by excluding Exhibit 621 under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the district court did not err in limiting the scope of defendant's witness's testimony where the testimony was inadmissible hearsay; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendant's proposed theory-of-defense instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Picardi" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the state court applied the correct legal standard, a totality-of-the-circumstances test, in determining the voluntariness of his confession and reached a reasonable conclusion under the circumstances. The court also concluded that petitioner did not satisfy the elements of a Sixth Amendment claim under Strickland v. Washington where his ineffective-assistance claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gray v. Norman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana (Count 2), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 3). The court held that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering defendant's home without a warrant based on exigent circumstances at that time where a witness had told the police that a gun had been fired; the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where the scope of the search was reasonable and defendant did not object to the search, nor was he threatened, he acknowledged that he read and understood the consent form, and did not object while officers searched the house; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all three counts; and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Goodrich" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty for charges related to his involvement, as the Superintendent of the Street Department, in a scheme to defraud the city. Defendant later petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to assert during plea negotiations and at sentencing that U.S.S.G. 2C1.1, instead of U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, did not apply to his 18 U.S.C. 1341 convictions for mail fraud. Assuming that counsel was deficient during plea negotiation by agreeing to the application of an improper Guidelines section, defendant failed to show that this deficiency prejudiced him; assuming that defendant's counsel was deficient at sentencing, defendant failed to show prejudice where an objection by counsel to the application of section 2C1.1 would have breached the plea agreement; and breach of the plea agreement by defendant would have released the government from its obligations under the plea agreement and would have allowed the government to proceed in any manner it desired with respect to defendant's charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Covington v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to producing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, as well as the district court's exclusion of evidence that one of the minors involved in defendant's production of child pornography was emancipated at the time the photographs were taken. The court concluded that officers had sufficient grounds to detain defendant until the point at which they developed probable cause for an arrest. Therefore, the duration of the seizure was constitutionally reasonable and the district court correctly refused to suppress evidence based on the length of the encounter. Based on the positive field test of the contact lens case for methamphetamine and the drug dog's alert to defendant's car, the officers had probable cause to search the car. Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the cell phone belonging to the underage passenger and the evidence seized from the phone was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction. The court agreed with the district court that the minor's previous marriage and emancipation were not legal defense to a charge against defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Stringer" on Justia Law