Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Delgrosso and Cain were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Delgrosso also was found guilty of failing to file IRS Form 8300. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a new trial based on Jerry Wright's post-trial affidavit because, even if Wright testified or the affidavit were admitted, the Government could impeach Wright's credibility by introducing evidence of his seven prior felony convictions. Furthermore, even if the jury believed Wright's statements, that does not mean that it would likely acquit defendants. In this case, the Government provided ample evidence that would allow the jury to conclude that Delgrosso and Cain knew or willfully blinded themselves to the fact that Wright acquired his cash through drug sales. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delgrosso's motion for a new trial based on Government misconduct under Brady v. Maryland where it was untimely and, even if it was timely, his allegations either relate to issues that were irrelevant or were directly contradicted; the district court did not plainly err by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err in denying Delgrosso's motion for acquittal where sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict; and the district court did not clearly err in denying Delgrosso safety-valve relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Delgrosso" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her 48 month sentence and conviction for assaulting a federal officer with her car. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conviction; the district court properly denied admitting a video statement defendant made to a VA investigator because the probative value of additional relevant evidence of intent and credibility was substantially outweighed by its cumulative nature; the district court did not err in its degree-of-injury finding; the district court did not err in applying USSG 2A2.2 for aggravated assault rather than for obstructing or impeding officers, a six-level official victim enhancement under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1), and a six-level enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(3)(E); and a 48 month sentence achieved through a 140 month downward variance was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 480 months in prison after he was convicted of second degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in crediting a law enforcement officer's testimony that defendant volunteered information regarding his drug use and lack of sleep; evidence regarding defendant's physical and mental health was properly admitted; and, although it was error to admit defendant's response to the officer's question regarding the last time he cut his hair, the admission was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence; the district court did not err in denying defendant a surrebuttal closing argument; the district court did not err in considering and explicitly rejecting defendant's request for a variance under USSG 5K2.10, 5K2.10, and under the forthcoming 2016 Sentencing Guidelines; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a continuance in order for him to obtain a mental health evaluation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 41 month sentence after being convicted of trafficking in counterfeit mark goods. The court concluded that the district court did not err by including the full value of the goods seized in a Kansas sale in defendant's infringement amount and by applying a twelve-level enhancement; the district court did not err by denying defendant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility where defendant did not voluntarily terminate or withdraw from his involvement in criminal conduct; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered factors including defendant's continued criminal conduct and the seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jawad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for multiple drug offenses and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's drug convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but defendant's felon in possession conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence where a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's roommate had a weapon that defendant did not know about; the district court improperly admitted Exhibit 37, an Arkansas Parole Board Waiver of Revocation Form, because the limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to defendant; and admission of Exhibit 37 was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence. Because the court reversed as to the felon in possession conviction, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a state trooper under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging damages based on the trooper's unconstitutional initiation of a traffic stop and questioning, detainment, and arrest of plaintiff without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. After removal to federal court, the district court denied the trooper summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded, however, that the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, the trooper pointed to objective, particular facts and explained why these facts led him to conclude he had reasonable suspicion to briefly extend defendant's detention to determine if a drug dog would alert to the exterior of a pickup truck traveling from Arizona to Illinois on Interstate 80. The court noted that more recent Eighth Circuit decisions have distinguished cases on which the district court primarily relied, and found no Fourth Amendment violations, let alone violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court explained that its prior cases have found reasonable suspicion upholding the extension of traffic stops by officers relying on similar facts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "De La Rosa v. White" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, a firearm in this case, found on his person incident to arrest for an unrelated crime. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for rape where the victim did not provide a positive identification of defendant sufficient to establish probable cause. The court explained that defendant lacked the essentially defining features of the victim's identification of her attacker, and the subsequently developed discrepancies were so significant that they constituted a significant obstacle to a finding of probable cause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for firearm possession and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a Facebook video showing defendant holding a firearm because it was relevant and the potential prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value; the handling of the firearm in the video was nearly identical to the manner in which defendant would have handled the firearm found in the vehicle based on the placement of his prints; the video was not overly remote in time; defendant's use of foul language in the video and the video's caption did not make the video unfairly prejudice in light of the district court's limiting instruction; and defendant's claim that the revocation of his Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) for Minnesota aggravated robbery does not constitute an "adult conviction" for purposes of the career-offender enhancement was foreclosed by United States v. Nash. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rembert" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 110 month sentence after pleading guilty to possessing firearms as a felon. The court concluded that the record supported the district court's conclusion that defendant's prior convictions for attempted-aggravated-assault in Kansas required violent force and fell under the force clause of USSG 4B1.2(a). The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession in connection with another felony, possessing marijuana. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that United States v. Pulliam is controlling law and rejected defendant's argument to the contrary. In Pulliam, this court held that a conviction for unlawful use of a firearm under Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.030 is a "violent felony" under the force clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(1) for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law