Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Christin Bilotti was convicted of second-degree murder in Florida state court. After exhausting her appeals, she sought postconviction relief in Florida, which was denied. Bilotti then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also rejected. The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on two claims from Bilotti’s federal habeas petition: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve a religion-based challenge to a juror strike and for failing to object to jury instructions.The Florida intermediate appellate court initially reversed Bilotti’s conviction, citing a similar case involving her co-defendant, John Pacchiana, where the court found the state’s peremptory strike of a juror pretextual and improper. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this decision, ruling that the religion-based objection was not properly preserved at trial. On remand, the intermediate appellate court affirmed Bilotti’s conviction.In state postconviction proceedings, Bilotti argued that her trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving the religion-based Batson challenge and for not objecting to the jury instructions. The state postconviction court denied her claims, adopting the state’s arguments, and the appellate court affirmed without explanation.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that even if Bilotti could show prejudice from her counsel’s failure to preserve the religion-based objection, she could not establish deficient performance. At the time of her trial, the law was unsettled on whether Batson extended to religion-based exclusions. The court also found that the jury instructions were substantively identical to Florida’s standard instructions, which had not been invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court. Therefore, counsel’s failure to object to these instructions was not deficient performance, nor was it prejudicial.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Bilotti’s habeas petition. View "Bilotti v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Jordan Pulido developed an online relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl, I.G., and, with the help of his father, Roberto Jimenez, traveled to Croatia to have sex with her. They later brought her to the United States, where Pulido continued to have sex with her. Pulido was indicted on multiple counts, including using the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transporting a minor for sexual activity. Jimenez was indicted for conspiring to transport a minor for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Pulido's pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and exclude testimony. Both defendants were convicted on all counts after a nine-day trial. Post-trial motions for acquittal, a new trial, and a mistrial were also denied. Jimenez received sentence enhancements for exercising undue influence and having custody or supervisory control over I.G.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions on most counts but vacated Pulido's conviction on the enticement count, finding the indictment duplicitous. The court held that the enticement count was not harmless and remanded for resentencing. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Pulido's motion to suppress evidence from his electronic devices, holding that the border search exception applied. Additionally, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the translation irregularities during I.G.'s mother's testimony.For Jimenez, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to transport I.G. for sexual activity. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a mistrial based on Agent Garcia's testimony about his immigration status, concluding that the curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice. Finally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody or supervisory control. View "U.S. v. Pulido" on Justia Law

The case involves an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, and Marion Michael O'Steen, a defense attorney. The investigation began after Andy Tong, who was being prosecuted by Siegmeister, informed the FBI that O'Steen would have to pay Siegmeister $50,000 for a favorable case disposition. The investigation concluded with a grand jury indictment against Siegmeister and O'Steen, charging them with multiple counts, including conspiracy to engage in bribery and extortion.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Siegmeister entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to several counts, including conspiracy and bribery. O'Steen stood trial on four counts. The jury found O'Steen not guilty on Counts One and Two but guilty on Counts Three and Four. The District Court sentenced O'Steen to concurrent prison terms of 44 months, followed by supervised release, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions on Count Three were flawed, as they allowed for a conviction based on an incorrect legal theory. The court also determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that O'Steen knew of the fifteen-day reporting requirement for filing Form 8300, as required by Count Four. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and instructed the lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal for O'Steen. View "USA v. O'Steen" on Justia Law

Kh’Lajuwon Murat was released from prison and began his supervised release. The government petitioned the district court to revoke his supervised release due to seven alleged violations, including failing to submit truthful reports, unauthorized travel, associating with criminals, and committing new offenses. Murat admitted to three violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment and 54 months’ supervised release. The court held the remaining violations in abeyance.The district court held a second hearing on Murat’s final day of imprisonment to address the remaining violations. Murat challenged the court’s jurisdiction, but the court found for the government on one violation and dismissed the others. Murat was sentenced to an additional four months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release. Murat appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining violations after the first revocation and that the second sentence was illegal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining violations because the petition was filed before the first revocation. The court explained that revocation does not terminate the term of supervised release, and the district court’s jurisdiction continues during the defendant’s imprisonment. The court also found that the district court’s procedure of holding violations in abeyance and issuing separate revocation orders did not constitute plain error. The judgment and sentence of the district court were affirmed. View "USA v. Murat" on Justia Law

In 2000, Reginald Bertram Johnson abducted and raped 14-year-old C.A. at gunpoint. Following the assault, C.A. was examined by Dr. Scott Silla at a rape treatment center, where biological specimens were collected. Eight years later, a DNA match linked Johnson to the specimens. At trial, the prosecution introduced Dr. Silla’s report to support the chain of custody for the specimens, despite Johnson’s objection that the report’s admission violated the Confrontation Clause since Dr. Silla did not testify. Johnson was convicted and later filed a habeas corpus petition, which was denied.The Florida District Court of Appeal upheld Johnson’s convictions, ruling that the report was properly authenticated as a business record and that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses involved in the collection and testing of the specimens. The Supreme Court of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court denied further review. Johnson then exhausted his state post-conviction remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Dr. Silla’s report without his testimony violated Johnson’s confrontation rights. The court assumed, without deciding, that there was a Confrontation Clause violation but found that any error was harmless. The court concluded that other evidence, including the DNA match and testimonies from C.A., Nurse Carter, Detective Signori, and forensic analyst Sharon Hinz, provided significant corroboration. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of Johnson’s habeas petition, holding that Johnson could not prove actual prejudice from the report’s admission. View "Johnson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

In 1977, Steven Schreck escaped from an Oregon prison and assumed the identity of a deceased man, Eugene Sandburg. Schreck acquired a passport using Sandburg’s identity and continued to use this identity for decades, including when renewing his passport. In 2021, Schreck applied for a passport renewal using his real identifying information but submitted his 2011 passport, which contained Sandburg’s false birth details, and certified that he had not made false statements or included false documents in support of his application.A federal grand jury indicted Schreck on two counts: using a passport obtained by a false statement and making a false statement in a passport application. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Schreck’s motion to dismiss the indictment and his motions for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted Schreck on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 12 months of probation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported Schreck’s conviction for using a passport obtained by a false statement, as submitting the 2011 passport with the renewal application constituted a “use” under 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The court also found that Schreck’s submission was willful and knowing, as he intentionally included the passport to meet the application requirements. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported Schreck’s conviction for making a false statement in a passport application, as the term “false documents” in the application covered documents containing untrue information. Schreck’s certification that he had not included false documents was found to be willful and knowing. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Schreck’s convictions. View "USA v. Schreck" on Justia Law

Edward Thomas James, a Florida inmate sentenced to death, raped and strangled eight-year-old Toni Neuner and murdered Betty Dick by stabbing her in front of her grandchild. He then stole Dick’s belongings and car, traveling across the country and selling her possessions. James was arrested and gave two videotaped confessions. He pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes. A jury recommended the death penalty, and the trial court sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.James sought state postconviction relief in 1998, but later filed a pro se notice to dismiss his proceedings, which the trial court allowed after ensuring he understood the consequences. Years later, he sought to reinstate his postconviction proceedings, but the trial court denied this, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. In 2018, James petitioned for federal habeas relief, which was stayed while he exhausted state claims. The state trial court dismissed his successive motion for postconviction relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. The district court lifted the stay, and James filed an amended habeas petition, which was denied as untimely. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability and James’s motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. James filed a motion for reconsideration and an emergency motion to stay his execution, which were denied. He also filed a motion to amend his habeas petition or for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), which the district court denied. The Eleventh Circuit denied James’s second motion to stay his execution, concluding he did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the equities warranted a stay. The court emphasized the overwhelming evidence of James’s guilt and the public interest in the timely enforcement of his sentence. View "James v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement officials used a confidential source to make controlled drug purchases from Roderick White, who identified Roshawn Jermaine Davis as his supplier. The FBI, through White, purchased drugs from Davis on nine occasions between January and October 2020. The FBI recorded numerous phone calls between Davis and White, and other co-conspirators, discussing drug trafficking. The FBI also installed a pole camera to monitor Davis’s home and obtained wiretaps on Davis’s cell phones, revealing his involvement in drug trafficking with multiple individuals.A jury in the Southern District of Florida convicted Davis of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and nine counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. Davis appealed his conspiracy conviction, arguing cumulative error and challenging the district court’s increase of his Sentencing Guidelines range. He also raised a Faretta issue concerning his right to self-representation at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Davis’s convictions, finding no plain error in the district court’s jury instructions or response to the jury’s note. The court also found that the cumulative errors claimed by Davis did not render his trial unfair. However, the court vacated Davis’s sentence and remanded for the district court to conduct an appropriate Faretta inquiry, as Davis had clearly and unequivocally requested to represent himself at sentencing. The court held that the district court erred by not conducting a Faretta hearing to determine if Davis could competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

In January 2021, Moises Sotelo was indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography. He used the social media app LiveMe to trade images of child pornography, including material involving prepubescent minors and sadistic content. Sotelo pled guilty to one count of receiving child pornography, and the government agreed to dismiss the possession charge and recommend a seven-year sentence.The Southern District of Florida calculated Sotelo’s guideline range as 135 to 168 months but sentenced him to 121 months, considering his criminal history and the nature of the offense. Sotelo appealed, arguing the district court did not properly weigh his cooperation, deportation, and the government’s sentencing recommendation.Sotelo also appealed the district court’s order awarding $30,000 in restitution to seven victims. He argued that the district court erred in relying on the NCMEC report and spreadsheet, failed to determine the total number of viewers of the images, and awarded restitution to victims unaware of their images’ circulation. He also contested the individual restitution amounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Sotelo to 121 months, noting the sentence was below the guideline range and statutory maximum. The court also affirmed the restitution order, finding the NCMEC report and spreadsheet reliable and sufficient to establish restitution. The court rejected Sotelo’s arguments about the necessity of determining the total number of viewers and the awareness of victims, affirming the district court’s awards based on the extensive record and reasonable projections of future costs. View "USA v. Sotelo" on Justia Law

Stevenson Charles engaged in a series of violent crimes against gay men in Miami, Florida, while on probation. Using the dating app Grindr, he lured victims to locations where he brandished a firearm, forced them into their cars, and directed them to banks or stores to withdraw money or purchase gift cards. Charles physically assaulted one victim and shot another multiple times. He expressed hatred towards gay people and indicated a desire to harm them. A federal grand jury indicted Charles on 17 counts, including carjacking, brandishing and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, kidnapping, and bank robbery. Charles pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida sentenced Charles to 45 years of imprisonment and 15 years of supervised release, despite the statutory maximum for supervised release being five years. The district court justified the extended supervised release term by noting Charles's stipulation to it in exchange for a reduced prison sentence. The government objected to the supervised release term, arguing it exceeded the statutory maximum and could invalidate the entire sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a statutory maximum punishment is not waivable and that the district court lacked the authority to impose a supervised release term exceeding the statutory maximum of five years. Consequently, the court vacated Charles's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing that the district court must impose a new sentence considering the statutory sentencing factors without relying on an illegal term of supervised release. View "U.S. v. Charles" on Justia Law