Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Walter Dushun Holmes, Jr. was indicted for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. His father, Walter Holmes, Sr., and Monetessa Packineau, among others, were also indicted. While Holmes Sr. and Packineau entered plea agreements, Holmes Jr. went to trial. During the trial, Holmes Jr. requested a sequestration order for witnesses, which was granted. The Government presented multiple witnesses, including Packineau and A.P., who testified about their drug transactions with Holmes Jr. Holmes Jr. attempted to call his father as a witness, but the court excluded Holmes Sr. due to a violation of the sequestration order, based on recorded jail phone calls. Holmes Jr. moved for a mistrial and later for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota sentenced Holmes Jr. to 188 months’ imprisonment. Holmes Jr. appealed, challenging the exclusion of his father’s testimony, the jury deliberation instructions, the denial of a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of Holmes Sr. as a witness, as Holmes Jr. had violated the sequestration order. The court also determined that the district court’s scheduling communications with the jury were not coercive and did not constitute supplemental jury instructions. Regarding the alleged Brady violation, the court held that the undisclosed evidence was cumulative of information already available to Holmes Jr., and thus, there was no violation. Finally, the court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Officer Brandon Johnson of the Rapid City Police Department stopped a Ford F-150 with an obstructed rear license plate and a tinted windshield. The driver, Evan Brown Bull, and the passenger, Angel Bush, were both arrested based on outstanding warrants. A search of the vehicle revealed a handgun holster, three boxes of ammunition, and a wooden stock to a rifle or shotgun. Brown Bull was charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota held a two-day trial, after which the jury convicted Brown Bull. The district court overruled his motion for judgment of acquittal. Brown Bull appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of knowing possession of the ammunition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the same standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The court noted that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed the ammunition. The court found that the evidence, including testimony from Brown Bull's former girlfriend and Facebook communications, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Brown Bull had constructive knowing possession of the ammunition.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Bull" on Justia Law

Zackaria Dahir Mohamed, a native of Somalia, entered the United States as a child refugee in 1998. He was later convicted of several offenses, including theft and assault with a dangerous weapon. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him due to these convictions. An Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered his removal in 2018, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Mohamed then petitioned for review.The IJ initially found Mohamed removable for aggravated felony theft and crimes of violence. In 2020, the IJ ordered his removal to Somalia. Mohamed appealed to the BIA, which remanded the case to the IJ to assess Mohamed’s competency. On remand, Mohamed presented evidence of his mental health history, including a psychological evaluation by Dr. Jerry Kroll. The IJ ruled in 2021 that Mohamed was competent during the 2020 merits hearing, based on Dr. Kroll’s testimony and the IJ’s observations. The BIA dismissed Mohamed’s appeal on de novo review, leading to the current petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Mohamed argued that the BIA’s affirmation of the IJ’s competency finding was unsupported by the record. The court noted that it has jurisdiction to review final agency removal orders but not factual findings related to criminal offenses. The court found that Mohamed’s competency determination was a factual finding, which is generally affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Mohamed’s claims were barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).Even if Mohamed presented a legal or constitutional claim, the court found no fundamental procedural error or resulting prejudice. The IJ had considered all appropriate evidence, including Dr. Kroll’s testimony and Mohamed’s behavior during proceedings. The court concluded that there was no procedural error in holding a retroactive competency hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Mohamed v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In this case, Jae Michael Bernard was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Bernard had a prior conviction in 2002 for domestic abuse assault causing injury. In September 2021, investigators found firearms and ammunition at his residence. Bernard pleaded guilty in June 2022 but later moved to withdraw his plea and dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Bernard's motion to dismiss the indictment. Bernard then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The district court sentenced him to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Bernard's appeal was based on a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9). The court noted that a facial challenge requires showing that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid. The court held that § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, which allows disarming individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. The court found that the statute is constitutional in at least some of its applications, as it targets individuals convicted of crimes involving actual or attempted violence or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that § 922(g)(9) is not unconstitutional on its face. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

Theodore Singleton was stopped by a state trooper on Interstate 80 in Nebraska in December 2021. The trooper, Sutton, observed Singleton reduce his speed and momentarily cross the center line. Upon approaching the vehicle, Sutton smelled marijuana, leading to a search that uncovered drugs and a handgun. Singleton was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses and moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge, denied Singleton's motion to suppress. The court found that Sutton had probable cause to stop Singleton for a traffic violation and to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana. Singleton entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 100 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Singleton argued that the trooper lacked probable cause for the traffic stop and that the search was unjustified. The appellate court upheld the district court's findings, noting that the district court's credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous. The court concluded that Sutton had a reasonable belief that Singleton violated Nebraska law by crossing the center line and that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for the search. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, denying Singleton's motion to suppress the evidence. View "United States v. Singleton" on Justia Law

In early 2020, the Sioux Falls Police Department began investigating Robin and Lanny Vensand for methamphetamine distribution. Surveillance and traffic stops led to drug seizures, and a search of their residence yielded 844 grams of methamphetamine and $27,000 in cash. The investigation expanded with the DEA's involvement, revealing that Salvador Madrigal Jr. orchestrated a drug transportation network from California to South Dakota, employing couriers like William Hartwick and Maria Magana-Zavala. Madrigal's wife, Anahi Cardona, assisted in coordinating logistics. The operation also involved money laundering activities, with Madrigal, Cardona, and Madrigal's mother structuring bank deposits to avoid federal reporting requirements.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota convicted Madrigal and Cardona of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Madrigal was sentenced to 400 months for methamphetamine distribution and 240 months for money laundering, to be served concurrently. Cardona was sentenced to 265 months for methamphetamine distribution and 240 months for money laundering, also to be served concurrently. Cardona's requests for safety-valve relief and challenges to the drug quantity attributed to her were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Madrigal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing coercion by the cartel, but the court found ample evidence supporting his convictions. Cardona also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of hearsay testimony, the drug quantity attributed to her, the denial of safety-valve relief, and claimed an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The court found sufficient evidence of her involvement in the methamphetamine conspiracy, upheld the admission of testimony as statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy, and found no error in the drug quantity determination or the denial of safety-valve relief. The court also found no abuse of discretion in her sentencing. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "United States v. Madrigal" on Justia Law

A homicide occurred in downtown Minneapolis on August 26, 2020, leading to protests and unrest. Leroy Williams Jr. was recorded on Facebook Live making incendiary comments and was later seen on surveillance footage participating in looting and attempting to ignite a cardboard box at the Target Headquarters. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) found no physical evidence of attempted arson. Williams was arrested and initially indicted for conspiracy to commit arson. He was conditionally released but violated terms, leading to his pretrial detention. Williams pleaded guilty to attempted arson but later withdrew his plea, leading to a trial where he was found guilty.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Williams to 120 months’ imprisonment, considering his criminal history, mental illness, substance abuse, and the serious nature of the offense. Williams objected, citing a sentencing disparity with his codefendants, who received lesser sentences despite causing more damage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Williams argued insufficient evidence for his conviction, procedural error in sentencing, and substantive unreasonableness of his sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Williams, as his actions and statements supported the verdict. The court found no procedural error, as the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors and provided a reasoned basis for its decision. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, given the district court’s thorough consideration of the relevant factors.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Williams’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In June 2017, an investigator from the Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office in Arkansas, posing as a 15-year-old named "Connor," responded to a Craigslist ad posted by Christopher Harcrow seeking young boys interested in spanking. After initially breaking off contact upon learning "Connor" was 15, Harcrow resumed communication 12 days later, discussing sexual activities and planning a meeting. When Harcrow arrived at the meeting location, he was arrested, and a search of his vehicle revealed personal lubricant purchased just before the meeting. Harcrow was charged with one count of enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Harcrow's motion for judgment of acquittal and allowed the jury to consider the entrapment defense. The jury found Harcrow guilty, and he was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. Harcrow appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, entrapment as a matter of law, a variance from the indictment, and denial of a fair trial due to a misstatement of law and inflammatory remarks by the prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, since Harcrow's communications and actions demonstrated intent to entice a minor for illegal sexual activity and constituted a substantial step toward committing the offense. The court found that Harcrow waived his entrapment argument and that there was no prejudicial variance from the indictment. Additionally, the court determined that the prosecution's remarks during closing arguments were based on reasonable inferences from the evidence and did not deprive Harcrow of a fair trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Harcrow’s conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. Harcrow" on Justia Law

Anthony Unocic, while incarcerated in a Nebraska detention center, told two fellow inmates that he wanted to kill a federal agent named Tubbs who had investigated him. Unocic's threats were taken seriously by the inmates because he bragged about a previous violent standoff with police, demonstrated stabbing techniques, and mentioned using explosives. The inmates reported the threats to federal agents, leading to Unocic being charged with one count of threatening to assault a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) and (c)(1).Unocic pleaded not guilty, and the case went to trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The district court instructed the jury on the elements required to convict Unocic, including that he either knew or intended that others would regard his communication as threatening violence, or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that others could regard his communication as threatening violence. The jury found Unocic guilty, and he was sentenced to thirty-three months' imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Unocic argued that the district court erred by including the term "carelessly" in the definition of "recklessly disregards" in the jury instructions. He claimed this allowed the jury to convict him for speech protected by the First Amendment. The Eighth Circuit reviewed for plain error and concluded that, taken as a whole, the jury instructions did not mislead the jury to convict Unocic based on an incorrect standard. The court found no obvious error and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Unocic" on Justia Law