Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to one count of knowing possession of child pornography and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress because defendant consented to the search of his home and internet capable devices. In this case, defendant's failure to object or limit his consent after the probation officer informed him of the need for a forensic examination of the devices prior to any revocation hearing is strong evidence of his understanding of the scope of his consent at the time. The court need not address his argument regarding any potentially diminished expectation of privacy based on the conditions of supervised release imposed on him. View "United States v. Berger" on Justia Law

Paul M. Gordon, convicted of three counts of rape of a minor child, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The court rejected Gordon's claim that he is entitled to equitable tolling under the one-year limitations period and concluded that Gordon failed to satisfy the two-prong test for equitable tolling because he has failed to explain why he was unable to diligently pursue his federal rights during the nine month period in which he was not in treatment-precaution status. The court also held that no cause exists to excuse Gordon's procedural default. In this case, the record evidence shows that any mental illness from which Gordon suffered during the relevant time did not impede his ability to comply with Arkansas Rule 37. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the section 2254 petition. View "Gordon v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress photographic identification evidence because the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the witness’s identification of defendant in the photographic lineup where the mere fact that defendant is the only individual pictured with a ponytail does not render the photographic lineup unduly suggestive. In this case, the show-up with a witness to the incident was not unduly suggestive and there is no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. House" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that both the government and the district court correctly recited some of the purposes for which evidence of prior convictions may be used, but the district court did not analyze the purpose for which the evidence was being offered in this case. Mere recitation of FRE 404(b) without an accompanying case-specific analysis risks couching criminal propensity in terms of knowledge, intent, or lack of mistake. Nonetheless, the court concluded that any error in admitting defendant's prior convictions was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion allowing defendant's post-arrest statement to be admitted for impeachment purposes; the statement was not offered as non-hearsay substantive evidence; and the statement was admitted under FRE 806 for the limited purpose of supporting the credibility of the declarant. Use of a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate the credibility of a witness who has been impeached by a prior inconsistent statement is appropriate when the statement contextualizes, clarifies, or amplifies the meaning of the witness’s testimony or inconsistent statement. The district court’s careful attention to the admission of the rehabilitation evidence presented supports the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting all of the proffered evidence for both parties regarding the credibility of the co-conspirator statements. Finally, there was no Brady violation associated with the government's failure to disclose the photograph at issue. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his 188-month sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his felony drug-trafficking convictions in 2001, 2004, and 2008 from Illinois. The court held that the district court did not err in classifying defendant's 2001 Illinois drug conviction as a "serious drug offense," as he was convicted of an offense "for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the sentencing guidelines because defendant had used the weapon in connection with a felony offense - exhibiting a weapon capable of lethal use under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030.1(4) - even if the gun was not functional. Although the court agreed with defendant's reasoning that, because the gun was not functional, it did not meet the Missouri statute’s requirement that the weapon be readily capable of lethal use, the court concluded that the argument was foreclosed by previous decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 72 months in prison. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the victim's prior grand jury testimony as a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A); because the victim's 911 call and recorded statements occurred with sufficient contemporaneity to the assault and evidence reliability, the district court did not err in admitting them under the present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Rule 803(1); and, even assuming that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), any such error was harmless because the district court adequately explained its overall sentence applying 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors.. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dean" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged his 100 month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a four level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense because defendant's violation of Iowa Code 724.4(1) was based on the same conduct underlying his federal offense pursuant to the court's decision in United States v. Walker. Walker held that a violation of section 724.4(1) would support the application of such an enhancement because a defendant does not automatically commit the Iowa felony when he violates the federal offense. Because the district court misstated the guideline range, however, it did not actually vary downward as intended. The court agreed with the parties that this was plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of wire fraud, making a false and fraudulent claim, and making false statements, the district court granted a judgment of acquittal on two counts of making false statements, and a new trial on the remaining counts. The government appealed. Defendant's charges stemmed from his application of a disaster-loan application to the SBA. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that defendant made a false statement by affirming no substantial adverse change in his financial condition. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting a judgment of acquittal on Count 7 for false representations to the SBA. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in granting acquittal on Count 8 where no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant willfully and knowingly made a false statement. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the remaining counts where it weighed the evidence supporting the verdicts against the exculpatory evidence before concluding in a thorough, reasoned manner that a miscarriage of justice may occur if the verdicts were allowed to stand. The district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in doing so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stacks" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his four prior convictions for aggravated burglary. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendant's three aggravated burglary convictions are separate predicate offenses under the ACCA and that the district court correctly determined that defendant thus qualifies as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Pledge" on Justia Law