Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences stemming from drug-related charges. Defendant's counsel raised numerous issues on appeal and defendant raised additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. The court addressed arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing issues, challenges to the conspiracy conviction, and additional issues raised pro se. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against St. Louis police officers for, inter alia, arresting her on false charges and conspiring to hide it. The court concluded that the record was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that Defendants Harris and Isshawn-O'Quinn participated in a section 1983 conspiracy to violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights by, inter alia, conspiring with other officers to prevent plaintiff from filing a section 1983 action following her false arrest. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to these defendants. The court dismissed the appeal by the municipal defendants for lack of jurisdiction where the issues raised by these defendants were not inextricably intertwined with the question of qualified immunity. View "S.L. v. Board of Police Commissioners, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a detective submitted a false statement of probable cause to secure a warrant for his arrest and that an assistant county attorney approved the warrant application even though it lacked probable cause. The detective sought a warrant for plaintiff's arrest, alleging that he had knowingly violated the state registration requirements for predatory offenders or intentionally provided false information. In light of the facts known to the detective when he applied for the warrant and the ambiguity of the statutory language, the court could not say that no reasonably competent officer would have applied for an arrest warrant. Accordingly, the court concluded that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity where the belief that probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff for failing to register his Belize address as his primary address - even if that belief was mistaken - was objectively reasonable. Even if no probable cause existed to support the warrant for plaintiff's arrest, the attorney was nonetheless entitled to absolute immunity because his acts in reviewing and approving the complaint against plaintiff were taken to initiate the criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Saterdalen v. Spencer, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the district court used an incorrect standard to evaluate the effect of the Government's alleged use of perjured testimony during his underlying trial for wire fraud and money laundering. Defendant was a licensed attorney, a licensed real estate agent and broker, as well as a licensed contractor. He was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud purchasers of five residential properties. The court held that a false testimony claim fell within the category of trial error, rather than structural error. Applying the harmless-error standard and assuming that the testimony at issue was false and the Government knew or should have known of its falsity, the challenged testimony at issue did not produce a substantial or injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the section 2255 motion. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County after a jail operated by the County failed to provide him with necessary anti-seizure medication while he was incarcerated. In this instance, plaintiff presented no evidence to suggest that the County's policymaking officials would have received notice of the denial of his medication in the morning at issue and made a deliberate choice to ignore or tacitly authorize the denial in the course of those few hours. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the County because plaintiff failed to present evidence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees. View "Johnson, Jr. v. County of Douglas, NE" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of distribution of cocaine base and subsequently appealed his conviction. The court concluded that the incorrect date on the warrant was a "technicality issue" that did not invalidate the warrant; the magistrate judge's clerical error did not defeat probable cause; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, rejecting defendant's claim that the district court should have excluded the evidence discovered during the search of his residence; the government did not fail to establish that defendant lived at the residence where much of the evidence was discovered; and defendant's confession, combined with the evidence discovered during the controlled buys, trash pull, and search of his residence, was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the BIA's order denying his motion to terminate deportation proceedings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that petitioner's conviction of witness tampering in violation of Nebraska Statute 28-919(1)(c), (d), constituted an aggravated felony because it was an offense relating to the obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S). View "Armenta-Lagunas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Appellant, convicted of robbing a bank and killing a bank security guard, appealed the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court's judgment. The court rejected appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court did not err in denying appellant an evidentiary hearing regarding counsel's alleged failure to adequately investigate his mental health; and the court rejected appellant's Fifth Amendment Indictment Clause claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects. View "Holder v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the strip of grass and weeds on defendant's property constituted an open field for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment; because the officer was within an open field when he looked through defendant's fence, his actions did not constitute a trespassory search; and although defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the back yard, the gaps in the fence, through which the back yard could be seen unaided, rendered the expectation not one society was willing to recognize as reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mathias" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, the city and four officers, alleging, among other things, Fourth Amendment excessive force violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983; and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132; and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; and state tort law. The events at issue occurred when officers arrived at plaintiff's home after his mother called 911, reporting that he was having a psychotic episode and had attacked a member of the family. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment to Officer Martinec on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in securing plaintiff; reversed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment for Officers Ricker, Jones, and Raders on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claims as to these individual officers; reversed the denial of qualified immunity for all the officers and the denial of summary judgment as to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; reversed the denial of the city's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure to train claims; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. City of Omaha, et al." on Justia Law