Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose from Martin Sigillito's Ponzi scheme known as the British Lending Program (BLP). Plaintiffs, seeking to recoup losses due to the BLP, filed suit against St. Louis Bank, alleging violations of Missouri's Uniform Fiduciaries Law (UFL); aiding and abetting the breach of Sigillito's fiduciary duties; conspiracy to breach Sigillito's fiduciary duties; and conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly denied summary judgment to plaintiffs on their UFL claim where plaintiffs have failed to show that St. Louis Bank had actual knowledge that Sigillito misappropriated fiduciary funds; that St. Louis Bank acted in bad faith; and that St. Louis Bank knew that Sigillito was using the fiduciary funds for his personal benefit. The court also held that plaintiffs' common-law and RICO claims failed because the evidence did not create any genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rosemann v. St. Louis Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 156 months in prison after pleading guilty to a drug-related offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although the district court did not expressly refer to the factors set forth in the commentary to USSG 3B1.2, defendant has not shown that he would have received a minimal role adjustment, much less that he would have received a lesser sentence, had the district court not procedurally erred; merely showing that defendant was less culpable than other participants was not enough to entitle him to the adjustment if defendant was deeply involved in the offense; although defendant's sentence was 36 months above the mandatory minimum sentence, the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Cartagena" on Justia Law

Defendants Jackson and Kemp appealed their convictions and sentences for drug-related charges. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Kemp's prior bad acts under FRE 404(b) because the evidence was relevant; the government sufficiently explained how the evidence related to establishing a common intent, motive, and plan; and the district court's ruling revealed no error that substantially influenced the jury's verdict. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict Jackson of the conspiracy offense. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to proceed pro se for the fourth time on the third day of trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion, holding that defendant's motion was untimely. In this case, defendant made the motion midway through the third day of trial, he was not prepared to represent himself, and just because the district court advised defendant that he could make his motion to proceed pro se at any time did not make his motion timely. View "United States v. Prucha" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sex trafficking and drug-related convictions, holding that he was not denied a fair trial and rejecting his contention that the government failed to produce discovery in a timely manner and in a usable form that gave defendant an opportunity to review the information. Although defendant represented himself pro se, he was provided a pretrial investigator, subpoenaed numerous defense witnesses for trial, and made use of the government's discovery at trial. Furthermore, defendant provided no instances where lack of access to specific discovery prejudiced his trial defense. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's untimely request for a continuance on the day of the trial. View "United States v. Graves" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession, holding that the district court's statement to the crime victim at sentencing did not reflect bias or partiality. The Eighth Circuit explained that the district court's spontaneous expression of empathy for a crime victim's impact statement reflected no deep-seated antagonism, and its statement of reasons for imposing a 120-month sentence reflected thorough and proper consideration of the statutory sentencing factors. Rather, the district court's statement furthered the congressional policy of encouraging crime victim participation in the criminal justice process. View "United States v. Minard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a commitment order, holding, pursuant to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), that once a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, a district judge has no discretion in whether or not to commit him. The Eighth Circuit agreed with its sister circuits that section 4241(d) imposes a mandatory duty to commit a defendant who is found incompetent to the custody of the Attorney General, even if there is undisputed medical evidence that the defendant cannot be restored to competency. In this case, defendant's firearms offense and need for constant care by aging parents strongly indicated that the assistance of BOP experts would be needed in the section 4246 analysis. The Eighth Circuit also held that the limited commitment mandated by section 4241(d) complied with due process limitations outlined in Jackson v. Indiana, and the Attorney General, not the district court, has the discretion to order a non-custodial alternative. View "United States v. Dalasta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, holding that petitioner's claim, that he was denied due process when the district court entered an amended judgment that modified the restitution order without ensuring that he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard, was not cognizable under section 2255. The Eighth Circuit explained that the district court's order amending the judgment did not result in a new sentence or judgment because there was no substantive proceeding that adjudicated petitioner's guilt or determined the appropriate punishment. Further, the district court did not alter the amount of petitioner's restitution obligation or otherwise change his sanction. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's successive motion for lack of authorization from the court of appeals. View "Dyab v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of sentencing enhancements to reflect defendant's understated criminal history and his recidivism. Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a gun while a felon and was sentenced to 96 months in prison. The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward under USSG 4A1.3 to accurately reflect defendant's extensive criminal history, gun use, driving under the influence, burglaries, and assaultive behavior. Furthermore, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court reviewed the evidence fully aware of the applicable sentencing factors. View "United States v. Taylor, Jr." on Justia Law

In three consolidated cases, the court concluded that the motion for relief and the petition for writ constitute second or successive habeas applications, and denied authorization for the district court to consider them; petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to undertake an investigation into juror bias or misconduct was sufficiently similar to a habeas corpus application; and, even if the court were to conclude that the motion was not a second or success habeas petition, petitioner has not shown extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief. The court denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability as moot; petitioner's protective application to file a second or successive habeas petition; and motions for stay of execution that were currently pending in each of the three cases. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law