Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendants Dunn, Westbrook, and Moore also appealed their convictions for using a communication facility to facilitate cocaine distribution. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the cocaine conspiracy convictions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions in limine to exclude late-disclosed witnesses where defendants made no showing of prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial where a witness's testimony incriminating Defendant Dunn was not disclosed in the proffer statement produced to defense counsel because any prejudice to defendants or benefit to the government was small; the district court did not plainly err when it authorized the extension of the wiretap; Dunn had actual notice of the recorded calls within 90 days of the wiretap's termination and failed to show prejudice; and the district court did not err in denying Dunn's motion to suppress or his motion in limine regarding a special agent's failure to properly identify Dunn as the speaker on the recorded calls. The court disposed of defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action alleging that a correctional officer and a lieutenant at the jail in which plaintiff was detained violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by failing to protect him from being attacked by three fellow inmates. Both defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the correctional officer where there was sufficient evidence on the present limited record from which a jury could infer that he acted with the requisite mental state for a constitutional violation. The court concluded, however, that there was no admissible evidence to establish that the lieutenant knew about a substantial risk to plaintiff's safety and, thus, the lieutenant was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and denied in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Glaze v. Andrews, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for three counts of arson. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prior-acts evidence where the evidence showed intent and lack of accident; the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward in defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 5K2.0(a)(3) and the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors under section 3553(a). View "United States v. Gant" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to conspiring to manufacture fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in assessing criminal history points for two prior state convictions when it concluded that defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f); the district court did not clearly err in finding these prior offenses were not "relevant conduct" but, rather, they were "severable and distinct" from the offense of conviction; the rule of lenity did not apply in this instance; and the court rejected defendant's contention that the mandatory minimum sentence violated his right to due process. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of crack cocaine. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a Franks hearing and denying the motion to suppress where defendant could not show that the alleged false arrest was necessary to the finding of probable cause; evidence was sufficient for the district court to deny defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal; and the court rejected defendant's Brady claim where plaintiff failed to show that earlier disclosure of the substance of the "new" testimony at issue would have altered the result of the proceeding. View "United States v. Keys" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, the deputy sheriff that had arrested him, alleging excessive force and false arrest under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found that defendant had failed to meet his burden of proving probable cause and denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The court found no merit in defendant's claim that the district court effectively imposed a novel requirement that an officer may conduct a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense only if that offense took place in the presence of the officer. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that defendant met his burden of showing arguable probable cause and he was, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the false arrest claim. View "Chevallier v. Hand" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court affirmed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant was the person who committed the offense; the evidence was sufficient to permit an inference that the crime occurred in the District of Nebraska; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the firearms into evidence; possession of a short-barreled shotgun was a crime of violence and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2); and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) where he possessed the guns in connection with another felony - namely, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. View "United States v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's exclusion into evidence of an audio recording of a telephone conversation between defendant, charged with sexual abuse of a minor, and his mother where defendant admitted his guilt. The court affirmed, concluding that there was no indication that the district court's ruling unfairly prevented the government from proving its case and the district court adequately explained why the probative value of the audio recording was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury. Finally, defendant never argued that the attorney-client privilege extended to the taped conversation with his mother, nor did the court interpret the district court's order as holding such. View "United States v. Condon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiring to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. The court affirmed, concluding that, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was ample evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of and knowingly joined a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, and that he possessed pseudoephedrine knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, it would be used to manufacture an illegal drug. View "United States v. Gutknecht" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in not granting a mistrial and that the district court erred in sentencing him to 210 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that, even if the district court erred in reading the portion of the indictment stating the nature of his prior conviction, there was no clear prejudice here and defendant was not entitled to a mistrial on this basis. Further, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant to more than 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), where defendant was convicted of at least three requisite offenses. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law