Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two heroin-related offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine over his Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) objection allowing witnesses to testify about defendant's alleged track distribution, and denial of defendant's objection to testimony about money laundering under Rule 401; in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where defendant failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel at the time of the motion and hearing; in considering defendant's crack-distribution conduct when calculating his advisory guidelines offense level; and in calculating defendant's criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The state appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of murder. The court concluded that counsel's failure to move for a mistrial after the trial court improperly substituted an alternate juror for a juror who had been dismissed was a strategic decision that did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under Strickland v. Washington. Further, the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief and reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Escobedo v. Lund" on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's suppression of statements and evidence gathered during the search of defendant's home and car. Defendant was charged with two counts of receipt and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's statements and consent were voluntary where the agent who interviewed defendant and requested his consent to search did not make threats or promises, use deceptive tactics, or even raise his voice. Additionally, defendant spoke clearly, was coherent, and appeared to understand what was happening. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's suppression of the statements. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of disaster fraud and making a false statement. Defendant had submitted an online application for disaster assistance for a residence in Joplin, Missouri that he had never lived at or signed a lease for. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of disaster fraud and making a false statement. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his adopted special needs son, appealed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. Petitioner contended that he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel because counsel inadequately advised him about whether to disclose the location of the boy's body and then disclosed the location of the body during the bond review hearing. The court concluded that the state court did not render a decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law where counsel's actions reflected a legitimate trial strategy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boss, Jr. v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, falsely accused of rape and jailed for seventeen days, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and police officers. Plaintiff alleged that the officers failed to account for certain evidence defendant claimed was exculpatory, both in investigating the claim and in drafting an affidavit used to obtain an arrest warrant. The court concluded that the officers' decision to focus on other investigative leads rather than pursue tenuous, circumstantial, and potentially biased testimony from bar patrons neither shocks the conscience nor indicates recklessness; the officers' reaction to the investigator's suspicion of the photos of the victim demonstrated the even-handedness of their investigation where they soon called in a forensic nurse and then confronted the victim; and plaintiff's remaining allegations of reckless failures on the part of the officers was without merit. Further, plaintiff failed to show any omissions in the affidavit that demonstrated that the officers were reckless. Without a constitutional violation by the officers, there can be no liability for the county. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which found no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers committed any constitutional violations. View "Hawkins v. Gage County, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant was not entitled to a justification defense and the district court did not clearly err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6) based on its finding that defendant possessed the firearm in connection with another felony. Further, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his involvement in a Ponzi scheme known as the "British Lending Program" (BLP). The court concluded that the government satisfied the particularity requirement for the search warrant given the ubiquity of the BLP within defendant's law office; even if the executing officers failed to leave a copy of Attachment A of the warrant at the scene of the search, any error would have been isolated inadvertence rather than indicative of a pattern of recurring negligence; and defendant failed to show any prejudice from a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f)(1)(C). The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the district court's motion to suppress. The court rejected defendant's arguments relating to the authority of the AUSAs in this case to prosecute him; defendant's Brady claims; defendant's claims of other errors committed during trial; and defendant's claims of sentencing errors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sigillito" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed defendant's conviction as an armed career criminal where the district court did not err in holding that defendant's prior Missouri convictions for first-degree assault and first-degree robbery were separate predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). View "United States v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Williams and Porter filed suit against law enforcement officers, alleging claims arising from a traffic stop. The court concluded reasonable suspicion that Williams was operating a vehicle while intoxicated justified the officer's investigatory stop of the vehicle; Officer Forck's mistaken perception that the driver, rather than the passenger, in a double-parked vehicle was consuming alcohol was objectively reasonable; an objectively reasonable concern for officer safety or suspicion of danger existed in this instance; the officers permissibly drew their weapons, handcuffed plaintiffs and performed a protective sweep of the vehicle; detaining plaintiffs for about 30 minutes was not an unreasonable amount of time; and, therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims. The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the district court judge lacked authority to adjudicate this matter due to her status as a senior district court judge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Williams, et al. v. Decker, et al." on Justia Law