Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Because defendant was charged with a single, continuous act of possession over a ten-minute period, the court found no error in the district court's failure to give a specific unanimity instruction. The court concluded that the majority of the prosecutor's statements during closing argument were not improper, and that those that were improper did not result in substantial prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Ruiz, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with fourteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 stemming from his scheme to defraud his employer. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, and for an arrest of judgment. The court rejected defendant's argument that routine transmissions occurring during the interbank collection process were not made for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud or in furtherance thereof; the district court erred in the jury instructions; there was insufficient evidence; and the wire fraud statute was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Jinian" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The court held that petitioner's first two claims on appeal, that the Arizona courts applied an unconstitutional causal nexus test to mitigating evidence and the Arizona courts failed to consider mitigation evidence of his history of substance abuse, were without merit. The court held that petitioner's third claim, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, was procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Poyson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The government sought to forfeit two bundles of currency in the amounts of $11,500 and $2,971. Only one contrary claim was filed regarding both sets of currency. The district court concluded that the claimant failed to comply with Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(5)(a)(iii), which required that a claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor. The court agreed with the district court that the requirement applied to the claimant, even though he initially asserted a different interest. The court concluded, however, that striking his claim based on that transgression was not mandatory but was instead subject to the sound exercise of discretion by the court. In this case, the dismissal of the claim to the $11,500 for that failure was an abuse of discretion, primarily because the omission did not prejudice the government or extend the forfeiture proceedings. The court further concluded that, even though the government had not given timely notice in regards to both sets of currency, the government was not required in these circumstances to return the property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the government regarding the portion of currency amounting to $2,971. The court vacated the judgment in favor of the government as to the $11,500 portion and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Guerrero, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arizona capital prisoner convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, appealed from the denial of his first habeas petition and sought authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. The court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's requests for evidentiary hearings on his various ineffective assistance claims; the Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it denied petitioner's Eight Amendment claim regarding victim impact evidence; and because petitioner had not been able to demonstrate either due diligence or actual innocence as to his claims that where not presented in his first habeas petition, his application to file a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and denied his application to file a second or successive habeas petition. View "Gulbrandson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a proximate cause requirement when applying 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(3) and, in this respect, the petition was denied. The court's review of the record demonstrated that petitioners provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between defendant's offense and petitioner's losses. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part. View "Amy & Vicky v. USDC-SAC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction and sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the Certificate of Indian Blood was a self-authenticating document under Fed. R. Evid. 902(2). Because the error was not harmless, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion in limine, thus it did not deny defendant's right to present a defense. Finally, the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for serious bodily injury was not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Alvirez, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner was convicted of murdering her child and sentenced to death. At trial, petitioner protested her innocence and denied confessing to the murder while the detective who interviewed her shortly after the murder testified that she had confessed to committing the murder. There were no other witnesses or direct evidence linking petitioner to the crime. The judge and jury believed the detective but they did not know that the detective had a long history of lying under oath and other misconduct. The court concluded that the state violated the requirements of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States because it knew about this misconduct but didn't disclose it. The court held that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief and therefore, reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus setting aside her convictions and sentences. View "Milke, et al v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The state filed a civil petition against petitioner under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 6600 et seq., just before petitioner's confinement was expected to end. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court, claiming that his exceedingly lengthy detention violated his constitutional rights. However, that court denied the petition and the California appellate courts agreed. Meanwhile, petitioner remained in custody and his SVPA petition made no progress. Petitioner then filed a federal pro se habeas petition. The district court concluded that the doctrine of Younger abstention applied and dismissed petitioner's case. The court held that the district court's abstention and denial of the writ were inappropriate where the state's counsel indicated that a trial on the commitment petition could be completed within 90 days and that the state would not oppose an order granting an alternative writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. View "Knight v. Ahlin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of providing material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A, and of making false statements to government officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. On appeal, defendant argued that he was denied a fair trial because the jury's foreperson was biased against him; the district court imposed an unconstitutional limitation on his cross-examination of the government's key witness; and the district court erred in admitting expert testimony offered by the government and excluding expert testimony offered by the defense. Defendant also sought review of the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his motion to vacate his convictions under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court affirmed the judgment; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the dismissal of the section 2255 motion; and denied the government's motion to strike portions of the opening brief that cited to materials outside the record as moot. View "United States v. Hayat" on Justia Law