Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instructions constructively amended Count II of the superceding indictment and that the district court plainly erred by trying her with her pro se codefendant. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury instruction did not constructively amend the superseding indictment; and (2) the district court did not plainly err in failing to sever Defendant's trial, as Defendant did not suffer unfair prejudice by being tried with her pro se codefendant, and because Defendant could have anticipated the effects of her codefendant's pro se representation prior to trial and asked for a severance on that ground.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm conditioned on his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) for purposes of Defendant's motion to suppress, the traffic stop was justified; (2) even if the initial duration of the detention was unlawful, the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress the firearms; and (3) the plain view doctrine permitted seizure of the firearms discovered in the vehicle Defendant was driving even though the search warrant did not list them as items to be seized.

Defendant was arrested for possessing a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the firearm obtained from the vehicle he was riding in, arguing (1) the officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle; and (2) even if the officer was reasonably mistaken in believing there was a traffic violation, any reasonable suspicion should have vanished when the officer saw the vehicle's valid In Transit sticker. The district court denied the motion. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the initial traffic stop and the officer's limited inquiry, which led to the search and Defendant's arrest, were constitutionally valid.

Appellant entered a conditional plea agreement and pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. As allowed by his conditional guilty plea, Appellant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was probable cause to stop Appellant; (2) there was reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant in order to search his vehicle; (3) the law enforcement officer's questions did not amount to an unreasonable search; (4) the time spent waiting for a drug detection dog was not unreasonable; and (5) the search of Appellant's vehicle after he was placed in a custodial arrest did not exceed the proper scope of investigation.

Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after a pat-down by law enforcement officers revealed that Defendant was in possession of a firearm, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that although this case "was a close call," the officers did not have reasonable suspicion as required for a pat-down search under Terry v. Ohio. The Eighth Circuit reversed the order granting the motion to suppressed, holding that the totality of the circumstances created an objectively reasonable suspicion that Defendant might be armed and dangerous, and thus the pat-down search was constitutionally permissible.

Defendant Vincente Carrasco Espinoza appealed his conviction for one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict Defendant on both counts; (2) the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant on appeal; (3) the government did not engage in misconduct during closing arguments; and (4) the district court did not err in giving certain jury instructions and denying Defendant's proposed jury instructions.

A jury convicted Appellant of one count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and two counts of distributing methamphetamine. Defendant appealed his conviction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court did not err by (1) requiring Defendant to disclose his firearms expert; (2) refusing to instruct the jury on Defendant's coercion defense; (3) refusing to instruct the jury on Defendant's defense theory; and (4) prohibiting Defendant's counsel from presenting his defense theory in closing arguments. Defendant's remaining argument, that the district court erred by prohibiting the firearms expert from testifying, was meritless, as the district court did not make a definitive ruling on the matter.

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to charges that he conspired to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and 100 kilograms of marijuana and possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Appellant appealed district court orders denying his motions to suppress evidence and for a Franks hearing, and his request to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge without admitting drug quantities alleged in the indictment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the motion to suppress was properly denied; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Franks hearing; and (3) the district court properly denied Defendant's plea motion under United States v. Brown.

Appellant was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 235 months' incarceration. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied the motion to suppress DNA evidence obtained after Appellant's arrest; (2) Appellant's waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing Appellant to represent himself at trial; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing.

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, asserting that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress and excluded prior convictions of a government witness under Fed. R. Evid. 609. Defendant also argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not erroneously exclude two prior convictions of a government witness under Rule 609; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.