Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Charles Hamber was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a pistol was found on him during a traffic stop. The incident occurred when Officer William Ware responded to a call about a truck idling at a gas station for over two hours. Upon arrival, Officer Ware found Hamber asleep in the truck. After waking him, Hamber provided his driver's license, and a check revealed he was potentially a convicted felon. Officer Ware asked Hamber to step out of the vehicle and, after obtaining consent, conducted a pat-down search, finding a loaded pistol and a knife. Hamber was arrested and charged.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Hamber moved to suppress the pistol, arguing it was obtained through an unlawful stop and search. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that Officer Ware had reasonable suspicion to search Hamber and that Hamber had voluntarily consented to the search. The district court adopted this recommendation, and Hamber was convicted following a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Hamber conceded that the initial stop was lawful and did not challenge the voluntary nature of his consent to the search. The primary issue on appeal was whether Officer Ware unlawfully extended the stop after determining Hamber's license was valid. The court held that Officer Ware had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to ensure Hamber was fit to drive, given the circumstances of finding him asleep at the wheel in an area known for narcotic use. The court concluded that the stop did not end until after Hamber consented to the search and the pistol was found. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and upheld Hamber's conviction. View "United States v. Hamber" on Justia Law

LaVance LeMarr Cooper was found guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm after officers discovered a Glock 20 pistol in his car during a traffic stop. Cooper admitted to smoking marijuana three to four times a week, including two days before the traffic stop. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.The district court, referencing the case United States v. Veasley, acknowledged that as-applied challenges to the drug-user-in-possession statute are available but concluded that Congress's decision to disarm drug users as a class left no room for individual assessments. Cooper argued that his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court disagreed, maintaining that the statute applied categorically to all drug users.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that while keeping firearms out of the hands of drug users does not always violate the Second Amendment, it can in certain circumstances. The court emphasized that historical analogues, such as the confinement of the mentally ill and going-armed laws, support disarmament only when the individual poses a danger to others. The court found that the district court erred in not considering whether Cooper's marijuana use made him dangerous or induced terror.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a reexamination of Cooper's motion to dismiss the indictment, instructing the lower court to determine whether Cooper's specific circumstances justified disarmament under the Second Amendment. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Keshon Baxter was charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. In May 2023, police encountered Baxter in Des Moines, Iowa, and found a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on him. Baxter moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violated the Second Amendment as applied to him and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied his motion without a hearing, and Baxter entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rejected Baxter's arguments. The court found that the government had shown adequate historical analogues to reject the Second Amendment challenge and that Baxter had not demonstrated that the statute was vague as applied to his conduct. Baxter then appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings regarding Baxter's drug use and its overlap with his firearm possession to properly address the as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for the necessary factual findings. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rejection of Baxter's vagueness challenge, noting that Baxter had not shown that the term "unlawful user" was vague as applied to his conduct. The court also affirmed the rejection of any facial Second Amendment challenge, as it was foreclosed by precedent.In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the vagueness and facial Second Amendment challenges, reversed the ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Baxter" on Justia Law

Wesley T. Vavra was charged with one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor after he arrived at a meeting place with items intended for a minor, believing he was meeting a father and his 8-year-old daughter, "Emma." The "father" was an undercover officer, and "Emma" did not exist. Vavra had engaged in explicit communications with the officer, expressing interest in meeting and engaging in sexual activities with the fictitious child.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held a jury trial, during which Vavra's motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. The jury found Vavra guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 235 months in prison. Vavra appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence and entrapment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a reasonable jury could find Vavra guilty of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor, as he took substantial steps toward committing the crime, including reinitiating contact and planning a meeting. The court also found that Vavra was not entrapped, as he showed predisposition and was not coerced by the undercover officer. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Vavra's motion for a judgment of acquittal.Regarding the sentence, the Eighth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness. The court found no procedural errors and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Vavra to 235 months, considering the nature of the offense and Vavra's actions. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the sentence was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. View "United States v. Vavra" on Justia Law

Deshonte Antwon Dickson was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin and methamphetamine. At his trial, witnesses testified that Dickson supplied methamphetamine and heroin from California to North Dakota. The jury convicted him of conspiring to distribute heroin and between 50 and 500 grams of methamphetamine. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a base offense level of 26, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 63 to 78 months imprisonment. However, the district court varied upward and sentenced Dickson to 120 months, finding him to be an essential participant in the conspiracy.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota initially sentenced Dickson to 120 months imprisonment, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing due to procedural errors. The district court had varied upward from the guidelines range without providing adequate notice. On remand, the district court gave notice of its intent to vary upward again and reimposed the 120-month sentence, citing Dickson's significant role in the conspiracy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in the district court's resentencing, as it had provided proper notice and based its decision on the trial evidence. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had considered the statutory sentencing factors and the nature of Dickson's involvement in the conspiracy. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Dickson" on Justia Law

Jason Potter was charged with drug trafficking offenses after police seized drugs from his vehicle during a traffic stop. The stop occurred following an investigation at a motel in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, where police were conducting surveillance due to reports of drug activity and stolen vehicles. Potter and his associate, Daniel Dryden, were arrested after leaving the motel. An inventory search of Potter’s car, conducted after it was towed, revealed methamphetamine. Potter moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and Potter was convicted and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Potter’s motion to suppress the evidence. A jury subsequently found Potter guilty on both counts of drug trafficking. The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment. Dryden, who pleaded guilty, received a 36-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the timing of the traffic stop did not make the seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as officers had probable cause based on an outstanding arrest warrant. The court also found that the inventory search of Potter’s car was reasonable and conducted according to standardized police procedures. Additionally, the court rejected Potter’s claim of vindictiveness in sentencing, noting that the district court provided valid reasons for the disparity between Potter’s and Dryden’s sentences. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied Potter’s appeal. View "United States v. Potter" on Justia Law

Four elderly sisters were accused of defrauding the United States by falsely claiming benefits under two federal programs. Each sister pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, preserving the right to appeal two pretrial rulings: the denial of a motion to suppress evidence and the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for untimeliness.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the sisters lacked standing to challenge the search of a property because they had no possessory interest in it. The court also found that even if the search was unconstitutional, the affidavits supporting the search warrants still provided probable cause. The motion to dismiss the indictment was denied because the court held that the statute of limitations for mail fraud begins on the date of mailing, not the date of the last overt act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the affidavits were sufficient to support the search warrants even without the contested information. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, stating that the aiding and abetting mail fraud charges were filed within the five-year limitations period. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motions, as the alleged disputes of fact were immaterial to the legal conclusions.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, upholding the convictions and sentences of the four sisters. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

Larenzo Burnett pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. During sentencing, a dispute arose regarding whether Burnett’s prior conviction under Iowa Code § 708.6(2) was a "crime of violence," which would increase his base offense level. The probation office recommended the increase, but Burnett objected. The parties reached a sentencing agreement where Burnett withdrew his objection and stipulated that the prior conviction was for a crime of violence. The district court imposed a sentence of 99 months and 14 days in prison.Burnett later filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Burnett had not asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day period allowed by rule. Consequently, the court denied Burnett’s motion to vacate his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Burnett needed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. The court found that Burnett’s defense counsel testified credibly that Burnett never requested an appeal. The district court’s credibility determination was not clearly erroneous, as it was based on the observation of witness demeanor and the consistency of the testimony. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that there was no clear error in the finding that Burnett did not ask his attorney to file a notice of appeal. View "Burnett v. United States" on Justia Law

Douglas Turner was convicted of possession of child pornography. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that his statements during a May 2018 interrogation should have been suppressed because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. At the time of the interrogation, Turner was an inmate and was interviewed by an FBI agent and a Bureau of Prisons investigator about a cell phone found in his bunk.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Turner's motion to suppress, concluding that he was not in custody during the interview. The court found that Turner was informed he did not have to answer questions and was not in custody, and that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner. A jury subsequently convicted Turner, and the district court imposed a sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal determination on "custody" de novo. The appellate court held that Turner was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during the interview. The court noted that Turner was informed he did not have to answer questions, the interview was conducted in a non-coercive environment, and Turner was returned to his normal prison life afterward. The court concluded that a reasonable inmate in Turner's position would have felt free to terminate the interview and return to his housing unit. Therefore, the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, and the judgment was upheld. View "U.S. v. Turner" on Justia Law

In January 2021, an individual wearing a black sweatsuit and a face mask robbed a Steak 'n Shake restaurant, holding the manager, Richard Payne, at gunpoint and taking money from the safe and cash registers. Payne identified the robber as Jonathan Davis, a former employee, based on his attire. Davis was later arrested wearing a similar outfit, and a red iPhone was seized from him. Davis claimed he was at a hotel talking to his girlfriend during the robbery. Investigators obtained a search warrant for the phone, which revealed incriminating evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Davis's motion to suppress the phone evidence, finding the warrant supported by probable cause and applicable under the good-faith exception. The court also denied Davis's motion to strike Juror No. 40, who had been a victim of a similar crime, and excluded defense testimony about a car Davis received as a gift after the robbery, deeming it irrelevant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also upheld the decision to retain Juror No. 40, finding no abuse of discretion and rejecting the implied bias argument. Lastly, the court affirmed the exclusion of the defense testimony regarding the car, agreeing that it was not relevant to the case.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed the judgment, maintaining Davis's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law