Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Marcel Williams filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the Arkansas lethal injection execution protocol. After the district court denied Williams' motion for a preliminary injunction, he moved for a stay of execution pending appeal. Williams' as-applied challenge alleged that due to his medical conditions, there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the execution method would cause him severe pain and serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that Williams failed to offer evidence establishing a significant likelihood of success on the merits. In this case, the State produced testimony that the execution protocol would succeed despite Williams' health conditions; Williams failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that would substantially reduce a significant risk of pain; and Williams unreasonably delayed in bringing this as-applied challenge. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a stay of execution pending appeal. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Marcel Williams, convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, rape, and aggravated robbery, moved for a stay of execution. Williams wanted to re-open the denial of federal habeas relief in 2009, renewing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The court concluded that Williams lacked a reasonable likelihood of success on his claims for Rule 60(b) relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel during either the penalty phase or the guilt phase of his trial. Therefore, Williams was not entitled to an extraordinary stay of execution. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Jack Harold Jones, Jr. appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and moved for a stay of execution. Jones argued that, because of his specific medical conditions, the administration of the ADC's lethal-injection protocol will inflict cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that Jones's delay in bringing his as-applied claim was sufficient reason to deny a stay; Jones failed to establish a significant possibility that he could show that, as applied to him, the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain; and Jones failed to establish that there was a significant possibility that he could identify an alternative method of execution that is feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order and denied a stay of execution. View "Jones, Jr. v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a motel room where he was staying. In this case, the motel clerk handed a law enforcement officer a key for the purpose of effecting an eviction, not to conduct a search. The court explained that it could not interpret Mo. Rev. Stat. 315.075 to require innkeepers to ignore police warnings of illicit conduct on hotel premises. Rather, the court must look to the specific facts behind police-initiated evictions. In this case, defendant did not offer, and the record does not convey, any evidence of bad faith on the part of the police. Therefore, the court found that the officer's entry into the motel room was for the lawful purpose of effecting defendant's eviction and the evidence observed during this initial entry was a valid basis for the subsequent search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Peoples" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment and 15 years supervised release. The court concluded, and the government concedes, that the district court erred by applying a five-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distribution of child pornography for the receipt or with the expectation of receiving a thing of value, because the enhancement was not supported by the record. The court concluded, however, that the district court correctly applied the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence in 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1) based on defendant's prior Minnesota conviction for possession of a pornographic work involving minors. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mayokok" on Justia Law

Two appeals were filed before this court five hours before Ledell Lee's scheduled execution. Lee challenged the district court's alleged denial of his motion requesting funds under 18 U.S.C. 3599(f) for "ancillary services to assist in the preparation of clemency and potential additional litigation." The court denied Lee's motion for stay of execution, concluding that Lee has failed to make a showing that there is a significant possibility that he will succeed on the merits of a claim that would deprive Arkansas of the authority to execute him. The court explained that, even if he succeeded on his section 3599(f) claim, Arkansas would still have the authority to execute him. View "Lee v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Four Arkansas death-row inmates appealed the denial of their motions for a preliminary injunction prohibiting their executions and moved the court for a stay of execution. The court concluded that, to the extent the inmates argued that Arkansas law, regulations, and policy during the clemency process violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this argument failed under well-established law; even if the inmates are correct that the Board failed to comply with Arkansas law, regulations, and policy, this in and of itself is insufficient to demonstrate a significant possibility of success on the merits; the district court was correct in determining that, despite the procedural shortcomings in the clemency process, the inmates received the minimal due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and the court rejected the inmates' claim that the district court abused its discretion in determining that their procedural impossibility claim "evaporated" at the moment the Board recommended against granting clemency. Accordingly, because the inmates have failed to show a significant possibility of success on the merits, the court denied the motion for a stay. View "Lee v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the revocation of his supervised release and 24 month sentence, arguing that his waiver of counsel and decision to proceed pro se were invalid. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice to represent himself at the revocation hearing. In this case, the magistrate judge had previously "strongly urged" defendant not to proceed pro se, defendant was well aware of the dangers of representing himself, defendant's age and extensive experience with the criminal justice system indicated that he was adequately equipped to make the decision to represent himself, and defendant had met with appointed counsel before the revocation hearing, although defendant never utilized him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Owen" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a minor, and fleeing. The district court denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, but granted a certificate of appealability on whether petitioner had a substantial claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing and failing to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase. The court found no evidence in the record that petitioner suffered a mental illness, and thus counsel was not deficient for failing to request a competency hearing. The court also concluded that counsel provided constitutionally adequate assistance despite not presenting potentially mitigating evidence of which she had not been apprised. In this case, had petitioner testified, the State would have attacked his credibility and introduced the details of his prior crimes. Furthermore, because petitioner would not permit his wife to testify, counsel had no other witness through which to present mitigating evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slocum v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The district court entered stays of execution in an action brought by nine Arkansas prisoners under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The prisoners were all convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The court granted the State's motion to vacate the stays, concluding that the prisoners could have brought their section 1983 method-of-execution claim much earlier and intentionally declined to do so; the district court's conclusion concerning the use of midazolam in the Arkansas execution protocol did not apply the governing standard; the district court's factual findings would not support a conclusion that the prisoners have a likelihood of success in showing that the execution protocol is sure or very likely to cause severe pain; the court disagreed with the legal standard that the district court applied in determining whether alternative methods of execution are known and available; and, even assuming a risk of pain from the current method, the availability of the several methods cited by the district court is too uncertain to satisfy the rigorous standard under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated the stays of execution. View "McGehee v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law