Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction on one count of importation of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's post-arrest statement because defendant's statement was voluntary and arguably inconsistent with his trial testimony and because the prosecution used the statement only as impeachment during rebuttal; the admission of a special agent's testimony as an expert on several topics did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and the Confrontation Clause and the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting the testimony; and the prosecutor's statement that it was the jury's "duty" to convict defendant did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of eight misdemeanor counts of possession of child pornography and one misdemeanor count of duplicating child pornography, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, although the prosecutor erred by arguing that the jury could consider the context in which the images at issue were displayed in determining whether the images were child pornography, the error was harmless. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Shoemaker v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged four certified claims and raised six uncertified claims, with respect to which the court granted a certificate of appealability. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment with respect to Claim 3 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of mental disorders as a mitigating factor), Claim 4 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a mental state defense), Claim 5 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner's incompetence and to request competency hearings), and Claim 11 (petitioner was incompetent to stand trial and waived fundamental rights), where petitioner failed to establish that the California Supreme Court's decision denying his claims necessarily involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In regards to the six additional claims, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on those claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "Sully v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and ecstasy. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug trafficking evidence found during a search of his home. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence against defendant was obtained without a warrant based on probable cause and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was not met in this case. View "United States v. Underwood" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated identity theft. At issue on appeal was whether a counterfeit paper check that bears a victim's true name, bank account number, and routing number was a "means of identification of another person" for the purposes of the aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. 1028A, 1028(d)(7). The court concluded that, under the plain statutory language of the aggravated identity theft statute, the names and banking numbers on defendant's counterfeit check were a "means of identification." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was the opening statement of defense counsel regarding the presence of an alibi witness. Petitioner argued that counsel's statement constituted a broken promise that prejudiced the outcome of the trial and rendered counsel's assistance constitutionally ineffective. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the California Court of Appeal was not unreasonable in concluding that counsel had not made a promise to produce an alibi witness. Counsel's statement was merely an expression of hope that the witness would in fact appear. View "Saesee v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of twelve felonies stemming from her work as a tax preparer for various clients. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the superseding indictment where there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that defendant's fraud scheme affected the banks within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1343, regardless of whether the banks ultimately suffered any actual loss; the predicate offenses for Counts 16 and 17 happened after 18 U.S.C. 1028A was enacted and, therefore, the jury was not wrong in convicting defendant of aggravated identity theft while relying on the predicate wire fraud offenses; the district court did not err in allowing defendant's former attorney to testify at the sentencing hearing where no attorney-client privilege was implicated; and the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss and restitution amounts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stargell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from a conviction for use or carrying and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (Count IV). The district court relied on Harris v. United States when it sentenced defendant. Harris has since been overruled in Alleyne v. United States, which held that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the government conceded that Count IV did not comport with Alleyne because the increased mandatory minimum sentence was based on a fact found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing where the district court must reexamine the entire sentence in light of the vacated sentence on Count IV. View "United States v. Lira" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for drug-related charges. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, concluding that any error in estimating the quantity of drugs attributable to the conspiracy was harmless, but that the district court erred in imposing the sentencing enhancement for use of a minor under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 without an adequate factual basis. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's rejection of his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the country, asserting that the rejection violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. The court court concluded that its prior opinions have rejected defendant's assertions that the indictment must set forth an enhancement under section 1326(b) and mention defendant's underlying conviction; the district court properly rejected defendant's guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and offered him the choice of again pleading guilty or proceeding to trial; because jeopardy attached when defendant pled guilty before the magistrate judge, this jeopardy never terminated and defendant had not been placed in double jeopardy; and defendant's claim was nonetheless colorable so the court had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valenzuela-Arisqueta" on Justia Law