Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was a dentist who was charged with crimes relating to cocaine possession and distribution. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentence imposed for one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one count of distribution of cocaine, and two counts of maintaining a drug-involved premises. The government cross-appealed the district court's denial of forfeiture of the seized equity from the sale of defendant's home. The court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; affirmed the district court's determination of the drug amount and refusal to grant a minor role adjustment; vacated the distribution count because it was duplicitous; vacated the convictions for maintaining drug-involved premises because the district court committed plain error by utilizing a "significant purpose" instruction rather than a "primary or principal use" instruction; and reversed the district court's denial of the government's forfeiture motion. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Mancuso" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault under a statute that provided for a maximum prison sentence of six months. On appeal, defendant argued that the possibility of being ordered to pay a substantial amount of money in restitution gave him the right to a trial by jury under the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The court concluded that the prosecution of defendant, even though it resulted in an order requiring him to make monetary payment in restitution, was still a prosecution for a petty offense, and was not a civil action. Therefore, defendant had no right to a jury under either the Sixth or Seventh Amendment and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stanfill El" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to deliver a "missing witness" instruction; the district court erred by sua sponte instructing the jury not to "speculate" as to why the witness was absent; the sua sponte instruction was harmless with regards to the charges of distribution and possession with intent to distribute; the court did not need to decide whether the district court's sua sponte instruction had a prejudicial effect on the conspiracy charge because the court reversed the conspiracy conviction on other grounds; even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there was no such agreement between defendant and someone else to distribute meth; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of this offense; and the court rejected defendant's contention that the judge should not have imposed a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. 841(b). Accordingly, the court vacated the conspiracy conviction, remanded to the district court to grant a judgment of acquittal on that count alone and to conform the sentence accordingly, and affirmed the remainder of defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of receiving stolen property. On appeal, the state challenged the district court's grant of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition based on Batson v. Kentucky. At issue was whether the California courts' determination that a prosecutor had genuine, race-neutral reasons for striking four black jurors during voir dire was an unreasonable application of federal constitutional law. As a threshold matter, the court held that Cullen v. Pinholster allowed the court to consider photographs that showed the racial composition of a jury venire to the extent that those photographs merely constructed facts visible to the state trial court that ruled on petitioner's Batson challenge. Overall, the evidence presented, including comparative analysis, did not persuade the court that habeas relief was warranted under the court's doubly deferential standard of review. Although some of the prosecutor's justifications appeared thin at first glance, a more searching review revealed nothing in the record suggesting that the state court unreasonably found these reasons to be genuine and not pretextual. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner. View "Jamerson v. Runnels" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction pursuant to a conditional plea agreement for one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant contended that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the handgun that formed the basis for his conviction because the discovery of that handgun was the product of an illegal search and seizure. The court rejected defendant's claim and affirmed the judgment of the district court because defendant was not seized before discarding the handgun and the handgun was not a fruit of the illegal backpack search. View "United States v. McClendon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution of controlled substances. At issue was the denial of defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to FBI agents during a meeting with his parole officer. The court concluded that, because the meeting was a custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings were required to allow the prosecution to use defendant's statements at trial. The agents engaged in a two-step interrogation prohibited by Missouri v. Seibert, deliberately delaying the giving of warnings to induce defendant's cooperation in an ongoing investigation. Although the target of the agents' inquiry was another suspect, the questioning necessarily elicited information that incriminated defendant. The mid-stream warnings provided after defendant incriminated himself were too little, too late. Therefore, the district court's failure to suppress the statements was in error. The confession was central to the conviction. Because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court reversed the conviction. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 911 for making a false claim of citizenship. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Defendant argued that his misstatement was not willful because he suffered from a delusion that caused him genuinely to believe that he was a United States citizen. The court concluded that the given instructions, considered as a whole, were adequate in the circumstances of this case. Although defendant's requested instruction more clearly articulated the knowledge requirement, the given instruction was adequate under the circumstances because a "misrepresentation... deliberately made" suggested a knowing falsehood. Combined with the testimony and closing arguments at trial, which focused on what defendant knew, the jury was aware that his subjective belief was the dispositive issue. The court also concluded that there was no plain error in the prosecutor's questioning of defendant's expert witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Anguiano-Morfin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to possess and of possessing with intent to distribute 2,915 kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission subsequently amended the Sentencing Guidelines to lower the offense level applicable to defendant, with an application note indicating that upward departures from the new level might be warranted in cases involving an excessive quantity of drugs. Defendant subsequently moved under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of his sentence. The court held that section 3582(c) contained no jurisdictional bar for the district court to entertain a second motion. Any non-jurisdictional challenges to a second motion were waived by the government when it failed to object. The court also concluded that the district court erred in failing to explain at all its rejection of defendant's arguments based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected defendant's contention that the upward departure under the amended Guideline's application note violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "United States v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the County Defendants. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that the County Defendants conspired to violate, and did violate, her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they unlawfully searched her home pursuant to an invalid search warrant, used excessive force in the execution of that warrant, and arrested her without probable cause. Because there was probable cause to search plaintiff's residence and to arrest her, the court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment with respect to those claims. Because disputed issues of material fact remained regarding plaintiff's excessive force and conspiracy claims, however, the court reversed and remanded those claims to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cameron v. Craig" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued several police officers and their employer, the City of Los Angeles, for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff was charged with attempted murder and was eventually acquitted. At issue was whether plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. The court concluded that plaintiff raised a genuine dispute as to whether an officer fabricated evidence at the preliminary hearing by falsely testifying that the victim had identified plaintiff as the shooter. That alleged fabrication plainly met the materiality threshold for defeating summary judgment on the merits. In this case, the state court never purported to find either that the officer's testimony was credible or that the victim's testimony was not. Accordingly, plaintiff was not barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wige v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law