Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, sentenced to death in Missouri, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the State's method of execution is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudiced and observed that the order was not a final order subject to appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay of execution. The parties then filed briefs regarding whether plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court did not properly enter a final judgment, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 54(b) does not apply to a single-claim action. Plaintiff's complaint brought only a single claim against state officials and the district court resolved that single claim by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. In this case, the district court could not invoke Rule 54(b) to enter a final judgment, or to “certify” its order for immediate appeal, because the district court’s order did not leave any claims, or the rights of any parties, unadjudicated in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties. View "Johnson v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), the district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 180 months in prison. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement under section 2252(b)(1) based on defendant's prior 1989 Missouri conviction for deviate sexual assault in the first degree. The court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not err by considering the charging document and not the facts underlying defendant's 1989 Missouri conviction. View "United States v. Sumner" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict defendant of the firearm and heroine possession charges. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his 1996 state felony conviction for possessing heroin with intent to deliver under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) where the prior-crimes evidence was relevant, probative, and not too remote in time to the instant offense, and because any potentially unfair prejudicial impact was mitigated by the district court’s limiting instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for producing child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury had more than ample evidence to convict defendant of producing child pornography. Defendant admitted that he had taken approximately ten pictures of his four-year-old nephew while his nephew was changing clothes. Defendant admitted to destroying the evidence. The court concluded that the absence of the images does not require an acquittal. The court also concluded that a comment by the government's attorney regarding defendant's choice to "zoom in" on his nephew's pubic area was not prejudicial because the effect of this alleged impropriety could have been only slight at best, and the district court's cautionary instruction would have cured any possible prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Paris" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence on four counts of making and subscribing a false tax return. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant knowingly and willfully underreported her income as professional adult entertainer; the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury; requiring the jury to decide unanimously whether the unreported income came from certain sources was unnecessary because it was not an essential element of the crime; each source provided alternative pieces of evidence to support each count of the indictment; even assuming duplicity in the indictment, the district court's instruction cured any potential prejudice created thereby; defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous and the government proved the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence based on defendant's testimony, and the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 2T1.1(b)(1); and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court sentenced defendant to a within-Guidelines sentence of 33 months and considered mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fairchild" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by performing a Terry stop without reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop where defendant bypassed an active crime scene to enter and sit in a suspect vehicle not yet secured or searched by law enforcement. Further, the suspect vehicle matched the description of a vehicle connected to an armed invasion and robbery three days prior. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Diriye" on Justia Law

Defendants Brenda Laws, Lareka Laws, Milton Laws, and Jameel Laws were convicted of charges related to their involvement in a scheme in which they filed more than 200 tax returns claiming first-time homebuyer tax credits to which the named taxpayer was not entitled. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the sophisticated means sentencing enhancement to Brenda under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). However, the district court erred in applying the organizer or leader enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a) where there is insufficient evidence to show that Brenda was an organizer or leader. The district court did not err in applying an enhancement to Brenda's sentence under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because the offense involved 50 or more victims. In regard to Milton's appeal, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion to reconsider its prior ruling and reopen the suppression issue; the district court did not err in finding that Milton was not in custody when he made the statements he seeks to suppress; and therefore the district court properly denied Milton's motion to suppress. In regard to Lareka and Jameel's appeal, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed as to Brenda's sentence in regard to the application of the organizer/leader enhancement. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Laws" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(1) based on his failure to appear at a supervised release revocation hearing. Defendant argued that he had not been released under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 207, and thus could not have violated section 3146(a)(1) by failing to appear at his revocation hearing pursuant to the summons. The court concluded that a defendant who has merely been served with a summons, but who has not yet appeared in court pursuant to that summons, has not been “released under” Chapter 207. In this case, defendant had been served a summons, but had not yet appeared in court pursuant to that summons. Therefore, defendant had not been released under Chapter 207 when he failed to appear at his supervised release revocation hearing, and could not have violated section 3146(a)(1). Because defendant's conduct did not, as a matter of law, meet all of the elements of the crime to which he pled, the district court plainly erred in determining otherwise and the error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Wroblewski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant John Daugherty was sufficiently involved in the decision to terminate plaintiff to qualify as a decision maker, given that the evidence showed that he participated in the investigation leading up to her termination, and that he was the one who ultimately told her she was terminated; there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Daugherty had earlier told plaintiff that she should step down because she was “a female” and “a single mom,” that it was “a man’s world,” and that she needed to “man up;" and because the court construed such comments, if made by a decisionmaker, as direct evidence of discriminatory animus, the court concluded, under a mixed-motive analysis, plaintiff may be entitled to some of the remedies she sought in her complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Morrow v. Zale Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 600-month sentence after being convicted of various charges related to his involvement in a gang, including murder. The court rejected defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge and concluded that defendant's 600-month sentence does not fall within Miller v. Alabama's categorical ban on mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile. The Supreme Court in Miller did not hold that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits imposing a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender. The court joined its sister circuits in declining to apply Miller's categorical ban to discretionary life sentences. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and made an individualized sentencing decision taking into account, inter alia, his age, rehabilitative efforts, the seriousness of the offenses, and defendant's refusal to accept responsibility. Further, there is no abuse of discretion when sentencing disparities arise from legitimate distinctions between participants in the same crimes. In this case, the thirteen-year-old who participated in the firebombing murders with defendant was too young to be tried as an adult and he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. Finally, defendant's claim that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to grant a downward departure due to his young age at the time of the crimes was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law