Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in crediting the state trooper's testimony over his at the suppression hearing because a video recording of the traffic stop contradicted the trooper's testimony. After reviewing the video, the court could not say that the district court clearly erred in concluding that defendant had a better view of the events than the camera in his patrol car, and consequently, deferred to the trooper's description of the incident. The court held that the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress where, given the trooper's description of defendant's erratic driving, the trooper had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that defendant violated Arkansas traffic laws; the trooper had a lawful basis for stopping defendant's vehicle; and the trooper's search of the vehicle and seizure of the marijuana were lawful under the automobile exception because he smelled the raw marijuana immediately after defendant rolled down his car window. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Beard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of producing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's failure to sua sponte dismiss a juror for cause after the juror arguably expressed an inability to consider the evidence against defendant impartially. The court held that defendant failed to raise this objection during the jury selection process and therefore, defendant waived the issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Klopfenstine" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment and raised various issues relating to his sentence. The court held that double jeopardy did not bar defendant's prosecution for failure to register in Missouri in 2009 where his federal conviction was based on his failure to register in Arkansas in 2010, a separate and distinct act. With respect to defendant's sentence, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level enhancement because of defendant's false trial testimony; the district court did not err in relying on the sex offender assessment; and defendant's sentence of 120 months in prison was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Kozohorsky" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3, 1151, and 1153(a), by assisting her boyfriend to avoid apprehension knowing that he had committed a murder in Indian country. The court agreed with defendant's contention that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the boyfriend was guilty of an offense against the United States; admitting a minute entry from the boyfriend's criminal case reciting that he had pleaded guilty "to Count 6 of the Superseding Indictment" to prove that he committed the predicate offense; and precluding defendant from presenting evidence that the boyfriend's action, and her knowledge of his action, included facts that could persuade a jury to find that the boyfriend acted in self-defense. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Head" on Justia Law

Defendant admitted to violating a supervised-release condition after sweat patches revealed drug use. The district court then found that defendant also committed more serious supervised-release violations involving assault and the possession of crack cocaine and marijuana. Defendant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment because the findings at issue were supported by substantial evidence and rested upon the district court's credibility determinations. View "United States v. Bunch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit against Correctional Officers Branch, Blair, Williford, Fox, Clubbs, and Parsons, in their official and individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Correctional Officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity with respect to the individual capacity claims. The court affirmed the portion of the district court's order which denied qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Branch for the delay in allowing plaintiff to wash off the pepper spray, the retaliation claim against Clubbs for the retaliatory death threats, and the retaliation claim against Blair. The court reversed the portion of the district court's order which denied qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim against Blair, Williford, Fox, and Parsons, the deliberate indifference claim against Blair for the treatment of plaintiff's wrist, and the retaliation claim against Clubbs for filing a false conduct violation. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Santiago v. Blair, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In light of the court's recent decisions in United States v. Brown and United States v. Almonte, the court concluded that the district court's finding that defendant possessed "well in excess of thirty ounces" of crack cocaine was not inconsistent with its previous findings that defendant possessed "clearly... in excess of 20 ounces" of cocaine. As Brown and Almonte were persuasive and applied directly to the issue presented before the court, defendant's argument for reduction of his sentence failed. View "United States v. Anderson, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the legal guardians and conservators of their adult son, sued the City and an investigator with the police department, alleging deprivation of the son's constitutional and statutory rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the investigator where his behavior during the interrogation did not shock the conscience, the adequacy of the investigation did not shock the conscience, the investigation was not in retaliation, and the "charging decision" did not shock the conscience. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the city where plaintiffs have not alleged a pattern of similar constitutional violations. In regards to plaintiffs' section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, claims, no reasonable jury could conclude that defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for the son's disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Folkerts v. City of Waverly, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated abuse (Count I), aggravated sexual abuse (Count II), and sexual abuse (Count III). Defendant was found not guilty by a jury on Count I and guilty on Counts II and III. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the three continuances would best serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq., occurred. The indictment was sufficient to allege an offense under Count II. Based on the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for Count III; and no variance occurred between the indictment and the proof at trial as to Count III. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Villarreal" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of drug offenses, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court erred in making additional findings. The court held that the district court was authorized to make the necessary supplemental finding in this case. And the court noted, moreover, that the district judge was particularly qualified to make a finding here because he had heard the evidence at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law