Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with production, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Law enforcement officers found 3,400 electronic images and 632 electronic videos of commercial child pornography pursuant to a warrant authorizing an electronic search of all of defendant's computer equipment and digital storage devices. The district court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and the government appealed. The court concluded that, because there was a fair probability that evidence of child pornography would be found on defendant's computer system, the underlying facts supported a finding of probable cause; the warrant was not overbroad and did not raise the risks inherent in over-seizing that the court considered in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (CDT III); the absence of precautionary search protocols, suggested as guidance in the plurality's concurring opinion in CDT III, was not fatal here; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Schesso" on Justia Law

On interlocutory appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of reconsideration and suppression of evidence found at an apartment defendant had entered several times in recent days before the search. At issue was whether the warrantless search of the apartment was valid under the Fourth Amendment because defendant was subject to a parole search condition. The court concluded that under its "relatively stringent" standard, the officers lacked probable cause to conclude that defendant lived at the apartment that they searched. In this instance, it was abundantly clear that the searched property was a residence, a parole condition permitting searches of "your residence and any property under your control" was triggered only when the officers have probable cause that the parolee lives at the residence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

Petitioner, along with one of his accomplices, was found guilty of murder. After petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, the court granted a certificate of appealability to the issue of whether the exclusion of the accomplice's statement violated petitioner's right to present a complete defense. The court concluded that the holding of the California Court of Appeal that the accomplice's confession was properly excluded was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. The accomplice gave three conflicting and contradictory versions of the murder and it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that these statements rendered the accomplice's own inculpatory statement unreliable. View "Phillips v. Herndon" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240-month concurrent sentences. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in considering defendant's compelled statements obtained during sex offender treatment in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court left the issue of the admissibility of a witness's testimony for the district court on remand and declined to reassign the case. View "United States v. Bahr, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death on each of two counts of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. On appeal, petitioner raised claims regarding the trial court's use of dual juries at trial; the trial court's use of a leg brace as a security measure during trial; and whether the sentencing judge properly considered all mitigating evidence under Lockett v. Ohio and Eddings v. Oklahoma. The court concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's "courtroom layout" and Lockett/Eddings claims, because the Arizona Supreme Court's decision denying relief was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court agreed with the State that the Lockett/Eddings line of cases held only that a sentencer must fully consider proffered mitigation evidence and did not affect a sentencer's determination of its weight. In this instance, the record made clear that the trial court adequately considered and weighed the mitigation evidence. The court also concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's remaining dual juries and "shackling" claims, because the claims were procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McKinney v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Barry Bonds's conviction of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, arose from Bonds's testimony before a grand jury investigation regarding whether the proceeds of the sales of performance enhancing drugs were being laundered. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 1503 applied to factually true statements that were evasive or misleading. Bonds could not escape criminal liability under section 1503 by contending that his response that he was a "celebrity child" was true. The court also concluded that Bonds's contention that his conviction should be reversed on the ground that section 1503 did not apply to a witness's statements before the grand jury was foreclosed by established precedent; the court rejected Bonds's argument that the use of the word "corruptly" in section 1503 was unconstitutionally vague and failed to put him on notice that his conduct was criminal; the indictment was sufficient; and the indictment and the jury instructions made clear that Bonds could be convicted on the basis of individual statements that were evasive or misleading. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bonds" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress and the order denying the government's motion for reconsideration. Defendant had given a border patrol agent permission to "look in" or "search" the two cell phones he had with him but the agent did not ask him whether he would also consent to the agent's answering any incoming calls. Nonetheless, when one of the phones range while the agent was conducting his search, the agent answered it, passing himself off as defendant. By answering the call, the agent obtained information leading to defendant's arrest and felony charges of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. The court rejected the government's claims that defendant did not have standing; in this instance, the agent's answering of the phone exceeded the scope of the consent that he obtained and, thus, violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right; the agent's impersonation of the intended recipient constituted a meaningful difference in the method and scope of the search in contrast to merely pushing a button in order to view a text message; consent to search a cell phone was insufficient to allow an agent to answer that phone, rather, specific consent to answer was necessary; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to both orders. View "United States v. Lopez-Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that most of the new evidence was cumulative and minimally significant; that non-cumulative evidence including allegations of sexual abuse, cerebral dysfunction and fetal alcohol syndrome were unsubstantiated by petitioner; most of the remaining evidence was speculative and came nowhere close to showing deficient performance; and the remaining evidence was minimally relevant at best. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schurz v. Schriro" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of second degree burglary, challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely. The court held, however, that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling on the ground that he relied on the assigned magistrate judge's order extending the filing deadline beyond the statutory limit. The court also held that petitioner sufficiently alleged that he was precluded from filing his habeas petition within the time period provided in the magistrate judge's order to warrant further development of the record. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for further proceedings. View "Sossa v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendants Bonilla and Calixtro appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from charges related to their involvement in a plan to hold an illegal alien hostage until he paid defendants certain sums of money. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting an ICE agent's expert testimony where the fact that the agent's potential bias happened to result from his employment by the Government was not also grounds for categorically barring his testimony; from the record, the court did not know whether the district court found Bonilla managed another participant in the crime under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c); and the district court plainly erred in calculating the range of Calixtro's sentence by apply the U.S.S.G. 2A41.(b)(3) enhancement to his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but vacated defendants' sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Bonilla-Guizar" on Justia Law