Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a senseless murder in a public bus. The prosecutor neglected, however, to discharge his obligation to disclose material information that would have enabled defense counsel to impeach the credibility of a critical witness against defendant. Applying de novo review, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process under Brady v. Maryland and defendant was entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus and release defendant from custody unless the district attorney timely initiated proceedings for a new trial. View "Amado v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 450 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that his guilty plea and sentence must be set aside because the district court impermissibly and prejudicially participated in his plea negotiations. The court followed United States v. Davila and reviewed the district court's alleged violation of Rule 11(c)(1) in light of the prejudice inquiry required. The court found that the district court participated in the parties' plea discussions by prematurely committing itself to a sentence of a specific severity and the district court's participation prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court held that the plea must be vacated and the appeal remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kyle" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The California Court of Appeal had found that the custodial confession at issue was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, but that it was harmless error. The district court conditionally granted the petition, finding that the California Court of Appeal's harmless error determination conflicted with the clearly established Supreme Court precedent of Harrison v. United States. Harrison held that when a defendant's trial testimony was induced by the erroneous admission of a confession into evidence, the trial testimony could not be introduced in a subsequent prosecution, nor could it be used to support the initial conviction on harmless error review. Harrison outlined a clear exclusionary rule that applied to the States; Harrison did not conflict with Motes v. United States; and Harrison remained clearly established law subsequent to Oregon v. Elstad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's determination that federal habeas corpus relief under section 2254(d)(1) was warranted. The court affirmed the district court's and state appellate court's conclusion that law enforcement's communications with petitioner did not comply with the clearly established Supreme Court precedent in Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny. The court vacated portions of the district court's order and judgment that concluded second-degree murder convictions were an appropriate remedy, remanding to the district court to issue a conditional writ. View "Lujan v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder-for-hire and victim tampering. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his pre-judgment motion for new trial without reaching the merits of his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court concluded that the district court did not err in this case by deferring consideration of defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim to collateral review, when a complete record would be available. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying the motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. As part of a reverse sting operation, an ATF undercover agent, working with a confidential informant, recruited defendants to carry out an armed robbery of a fictional cocaine stash. Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the fake robbery was the product of outrageous government conduct. The court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that defendants have not met the extremely high standard of demonstrating that the facts underlying their arrest and prosecution were so extreme as to violate fundamental fairness or were so grossly shocking as to violate the universal sense of justice. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting their sentencing entrapment arguments were any error was harmless. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner was charged with seventeen counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon children in violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code. The court denied the petition, holding that petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) because petitioner's state crime of conviction, California Penal Code section 288(c)(1), was a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) where it posed a substantial risk of the use of physical force. View "Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arizona death row prisoner, appealed from the district court's order dismissing his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Petitioner alleged three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that were neither presented in state post-conviction proceedings nor included in his initial federal habeas corpus petition. The court concluded that none of petitioner's arguments amounted to an allegation of a "defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings" that constituted grounds for a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion. Rather, petitioner was arguing in essence that he deserved "a second chance to have the merits determined favorably" in the context of a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court held that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's successive section 2254 habeas petition. Even if petitioner's motion was permissible under Rule 60(b), petitioner failed to satisfy the standards for relief from judgment under that rule. Likewise, petitioner failed to meet the stringent standards of a section 2254 habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion in No. 13-16928 and denied petitioner's motion to seek relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The court denied petitioner's as construed application in No. 13-16928 and his separate application in No. 13-73647 to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. View "Jones, Jr. v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of wire fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 60 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by engaging in impermissible double-counting where the district court was not prohibited from considering the extent to which the Guidelines did not sufficiently account for the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense. Further, the court had no basis for questioning whether the district court did, both in word and in fact, award defendant a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err as to defendant's remaining contentions that he failed to preserve. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Christensen" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiring to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 963 and importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952 and 960. The court concluded that the district court's decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction to the jury was not "illogical, implausible, or without support in inference that may be drawn from facts in the record." The court also concluded that the district court correctly denied Defendant Ramos's Rule 29 motion where a rational jury could believe Ramiro Gallegos's testimony, concluded that it was consonant with that of the border patrol agents, and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ramos knew, or was deliberately ignorant of, the objective of importing marijuana. Further, the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant Ramos-Atondo's prior smuggling crime where the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice. View "United States v. Ramos-Atondo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to life in prison, appealed the district court's dismissal of part of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argued that, because he was raising a Brady claim, he was not bound by the holdings of Coleman v. Thompson, which precluded relief when a claim was not exhausted during the post-conviction review process on account of lack of counsel or ineffective assistance of counsel. In Martinez v. Ryan, the court declared that where ineffective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction relief proceeding resulted in a failure to assert that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial proceedings, the claim would be cognizable. The court rejected petitioner's claim and concluded that the court was bound by Coleman and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hunton v. Sinclair" on Justia Law