Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A police officer in Bismarck, North Dakota, smelled marijuana in a hotel and traced the scent to Room 118, occupied by Leonard Tate. The officer obtained a search warrant based on the smell and Tate's criminal history. The search revealed fentanyl, cash, firearm parts, and other items. Tate was charged with three drug-related crimes and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the search exceeded its scope. The district court denied the motion, and Tate pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, preserving his right to appeal the suppression order.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota found that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the search did not exceed the warrant's scope, and the good-faith exception applied. Tate appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the search exceeded its scope.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the smell of marijuana alone provided substantial support for probable cause, especially given the officer's training and experience. The court also found that the search did not exceed the warrant's scope, as the items seized were in plain view and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Tate's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Tate" on Justia Law

Booker Deon McKinney pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition as an unlawful drug user, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. McKinney later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa initially reviewed the case. McKinney was indicted in January 2023 and pleaded guilty in June 2023. In January 2024, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss the indictment, which the district court denied. McKinney was sentenced on January 26, 2024, and subsequently appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. McKinney argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss the indictment, miscalculated his base offense level, relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and improperly weighed the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. The Eighth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no intervening change in the law that justified McKinney's belated request to withdraw his plea. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of the base offense level and its reliance on hearsay evidence, finding it sufficiently reliable. Finally, the court found McKinney's sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Clayton Stewart was involved in a police incident where Officer Victor Garcia of the Jonesboro, Arkansas police department tased him while he was climbing a fence. Stewart fell and was paralyzed as a result. Stewart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Garcia, Jonesboro Chief of Police Rick Elliot, and the City of Jonesboro, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, and Stewart appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Stewart argued that Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest him, used excessive force, and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He also claimed that Elliot was liable as Garcia’s supervisor and that the police department’s policies were unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Garcia had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Stewart for misdemeanor assault and fleeing. Regarding the excessive force claim, the court found that while tasing Stewart in an elevated position could be considered deadly force, Stewart’s right to be free from such force was not clearly established at the time of the incident, entitling Garcia to qualified immunity. On the deliberate indifference claim, the court concluded that although a reasonable jury could find Garcia was aware of Stewart’s serious medical needs, Stewart failed to show that the right was clearly established, granting Garcia qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the supervisory liability claim against Elliot and the municipal liability claim against the City of Jonesboro, finding no evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional acts or inadequate policies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Stewart v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In June 2022, law enforcement officers in Sarpy County received a tip that Rolando Midder was sex trafficking a 16-year-old girl, J.C. Officers met with J.C., who showed signs of physical abuse, and took her to a hospital for a sexual assault exam. After two weeks of investigation, Midder was arrested and charged with one count of sex trafficking a minor and two counts of sexually exploiting a minor. A jury convicted him on all counts.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska admitted social media evidence and witness testimony during the trial. Midder appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting this evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. He also challenged the scope of testimony given by a nurse who performed J.C.'s sexual assault exam, but he failed to provide any argument on this issue, resulting in a waiver of appellate review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and found that the government presented sufficient evidence connecting Midder to the cellphone and social media accounts used in the crimes. The court also upheld the admission of testimony from Eran Peatrowsky under Rule 404(b), finding it relevant to proving Midder’s knowledge, intent, and motive. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Midder’s convictions for sex trafficking a minor and sexual exploitation of a minor, based on the evidence presented at trial.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and upheld Midder’s convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Midder" on Justia Law

Evan Brown Bull was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The government presented evidence from thirteen witnesses and various forms of documentation, including videos and Facebook messages, detailing Brown Bull's drug dealings from 2016 to 2023. The Probation Office's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 32, with adjustments that increased the total offense level to 40, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Brown Bull objected to the PSR's findings and requested a downward variance to 180 months.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota overruled Brown Bull's objections and applied three sentencing enhancements: a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, a four-level increase for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and a two-level increase for committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. The court ultimately sentenced Brown Bull to 400 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's application of the sentencing enhancements. The court held that Brown Bull's pretrial jail messages and Facebook post constituted obstruction of justice, that he was an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy, and that his criminal conduct was part of his livelihood. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and upheld the 400-month sentence. View "United States v. Bull" on Justia Law

Shawn Russell Sorensen was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment based on prior state convictions for drug offenses. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not contesting the qualification of his prior convictions as "felony drug offenses" under 21 U.S.C. § 841’s sentencing enhancement scheme.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Sorensen's motion. The court found that his counsel's performance was not deficient, as the argument regarding the categorical approach to his prior convictions was considered novel at the time of sentencing. Sorensen appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Sorensen failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches to determine that Sorensen's prior convictions under Arizona and South Dakota statutes qualified as felony drug offenses. The Arizona statute was found to be divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine matched the federal definition of a felony drug offense. Similarly, the South Dakota statute was also deemed divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine under this statute qualified as a felony drug offense. Therefore, Sorensen's sentence was upheld, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Sorensen v. United States" on Justia Law

Sam Boyd was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Boyd filed motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his Speedy Trial Act rights were violated, and to sever the gun counts from the conspiracy count. Both motions were denied.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota issued a continuance on November 7, 2022, due to Boyd's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence. The hearing was delayed due to disputes over the witness list and difficulties in procuring testimony. Boyd filed additional documents in February 2023, and the magistrate judge recommended denying Boyd's motions in June. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in August and denied Boyd's motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to sever the firearm counts from the drug conspiracy count. The case proceeded to trial, and Boyd was convicted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the continuance and denying the motion to dismiss, as the continuance was justified by the complexity of the motions and witness issues. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to sever, as the evidence of the guns and drugs would be admissible in separate trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

In June 2022, Angelica Agena was stopped by deputies in Lancaster County, Nebraska, for a traffic violation. During the stop, the deputies observed suspicious behavior and an open alcohol container in the vehicle. Neither Agena nor the driver, Gary Payton, had a valid driver’s license. The deputies found a butane torch lighter and, upon searching the vehicle, discovered methamphetamine in Agena’s purse. Agena was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Agena’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Agena guilty on both counts. She was sentenced to fifty-four months in prison and five years of supervised release.Agena appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the denial of her motion to suppress, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict her. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.The Eighth Circuit held that the traffic stop was justified based on the defective taillight and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop due to the open container violation. The court also found that the search of Agena’s purse was supported by probable cause. Additionally, the court ruled that the admission of text messages and expert testimony about drug slang was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Agena’s convictions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Agena" on Justia Law

David Michael Woods was convicted by a jury of four counts related to the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. The charges stemmed from his sexual abuse of his 12-year-old foster son and 15-year-old adopted son, which he documented and distributed. The district court sentenced him to a total of 1,200 months in prison. Woods appealed his conviction and sentence.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Woods was allowed to represent himself after a Faretta hearing, despite the court's warnings about the dangers of self-representation. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Woods did not object to the court's decision to allow him to represent himself at trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Woods argued that he did not validly waive his right to counsel, but the court found that the district court's Faretta inquiry was sufficient. The court also rejected Woods's claims regarding the district court's reasonable doubt instruction, the alleged coercion of his decision not to testify, and the warning given to a potential witness about perjury. Additionally, the court found no cumulative error that would warrant a new trial.Woods also challenged the imposition of a $2,500 assessment under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act, arguing that he lacked the ability to pay. The court held that Woods did not meet his burden to prove indigence and noted that he could earn money while serving his sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Woods's conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. Woods" on Justia Law

Anthony Charles Deberry was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 108 months in prison. The incident occurred outside Born’s Bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, where Deberry had an altercation with a man named Turtle. Surveillance footage showed Deberry returning to the bar later that evening, and witnesses testified that he had a gun. A shootout ensued, and Deberry was seen on video with a gun, which he later hid under a parked car. Deberry claimed he was acting in self-defense, stating he wrestled the gun away from another man who shot him.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota instructed the jury that Deberry had to prove his justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury convicted Deberry, and he appealed, arguing that the burden of proof for his justification defense was misplaced and that his sentence enhancements for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and for obstructing justice were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Deberry’s justification defense did not negate his knowing possession of the firearm. The court affirmed the district court’s instruction that Deberry had the burden to prove his justification defense. Regarding the sentence enhancements, the court found no clear error in the district court’s application of enhancements for reckless discharge of a firearm and second-degree assault, as well as for obstructing justice. The court concluded that the district court’s findings were supported by the record and affirmed Deberry’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Deberry" on Justia Law