Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder with aggravating enhancements. This case presented three certified issues which the court reviewed under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d): (1) whether petitioner's federal due process rights were violated when the trial court construed California law to allow jurors to refuse to discuss their deliberations and alleged misconduct after trial; (2) whether jury misconduct involving unsolicited observations of some jurors deprived petitioner of his right to an impartial jury; and (3) whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's elicitation of unfavorable expert testimony on cross-examination. The court held that the California Court of Appeal's decision was not an unreasonable application of petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under AEDPA's stringent standard and the court affirmed the decision of the district court denying the petition for habeas corpus relief.

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Defendant challenged the district court's determination that his prior Arizona state court conviction for attempted aggravated assault was a crime of violence, and the resulting sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court affirmed the sentence because defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated assault rested on the elements of generic attempted aggravated assault.

Defendant was indicted for harboring aliens and moved to suppress evidence of the aliens as the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure. Though the district court found that the border patrol agents entered the curtilage of defendant's home and that there were no exigent circumstances that might justify the failure to obtain a warrant, that court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. Because the agents physically occupied the curtilage of defendant's home without obtaining a warrant, and no exceptions to the warrant requirement otherwise justified the search or seizure, the court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded.

The Government appealed the sentence imposed on defendant for illegal reentry following deportation. The district court declined to apply a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, for defendant's prior conviction under California Health & Safety Code 11351. The court held that a conviction under Section 11351 did not qualify categorically as a "drug trafficking offense" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. However, the court held that defendant's prior Section 11351 conviction qualified as a "drug trafficking offense" using the modified categorical approach. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Petitioner was sentenced to death following convictions for first-degree murder and other crimes. While seeking federal habeas relief, petitioner requested a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that he was not competent at the time to assist counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's competency, the district court denied the requested stay based on its determination that petitioner was competent to proceed. Petitioner sought an immediate appeal of the competency determination, or in the alternative, mandamus relief. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the competency determination at this time because it was not an immediately appealable order. The court also concluded that mandamus relief was not appropriate. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Petitioner was convicted in a California court of one count of forcible rape and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner first contended that the trial court permitted a forensic analyst to testify based on the results of scientific tests performed and reports prepared by other analysts in violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. The court held that this claim failed because there was no clearly established federal law, based on decisions of the Supreme Court, that held that such testimony violated the Confrontation Clause in circumstances where the testifying witness participated in and reviewed the crime lab's work, even though she did not personally conduct all the testing herself. The court also concluded that petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object based on the Confrontation Clause to the analyst's testimony did not represent deficient performance and did not prejudice petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his jury conviction of two counts of making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The court held that the district court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense; the district court properly decided as a matter of law that Form 4473 was required to be kept by licensed firearm dealers; and the district court provided adequate instructions on witness credibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

After plaintiff was convicted for drug possession with intent to distribute, plaintiff sought the return of his property seized by the government during his arrest pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Because some of plaintiff's belongings were inadvertently lost or destroyed, plaintiff sought equitable relief in the form of money damages to compensate for the missing property. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss because sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's suit for money damages against the government.

Defendant appealed his sentence following his conviction of three counts of assaulting a federal correctional officer. The sentence was imposed by a judge other than the trial judge, whose unavailability for sentencing was unexplained. A judge visiting the District of Arizona imposed the sentence with insufficient familiarity with the case. Because of that unfamiliarity and the unjustified replacement of the trial judge, the sentencing violating Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b) with prejudice. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for sentencing by the trial judge.

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against certain prison medical providers, alleging that the providers' delay in treating his hernia amounted to deliberate indifference to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held that plaintiff voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of any magistrate judge, including the one who decided his case; the allegations against Dr. Schuster could not support a deliberate indifference claim because they amount to a claim of negligence; and the allegations against Dr. Rotman were sufficient to warrant ordering him to file an answer. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part.