Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin was arrested and later convicted for the murders of his neighbors, Cheryl Williams and Carol Bareis, in Altamonte Springs, Florida. The investigation by Seminole County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) focused on Aguirre after bloody clothing and a knife were found near his residence, and forensic analysis by Donna Birks, a latent print examiner, identified Aguirre’s palm print on the murder weapon. Aguirre was tried and sentenced to death in 2006. Over the next decade, new evidence emerged: a 2007 investigation revealed misconduct in the SCSO Latent Print Unit, undermining the reliability of the fingerprint identification, and post-conviction DNA testing failed to link Aguirre to the crime scene but implicated Samantha Williams, the victims’ daughter and granddaughter, who later confessed to involvement in the murders.The Seminole Circuit Court denied Aguirre’s initial motion for a new trial, finding the evidence against him overwhelming. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed this denial. However, after further post-conviction investigation and new DNA evidence, the Supreme Court of Florida vacated Aguirre’s convictions and ordered a new trial. In 2018, the State dropped all charges against Aguirre.Aguirre then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Birks, lead investigator Robert Hemmert, crime scene analyst Jacqueline Grossi, and the Seminole County Sheriff, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The District Court denied qualified immunity to Birks, Hemmert, and Grossi on several counts and denied state-law immunity to Hemmert and Grossi.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Birks on the fabrication of evidence claim and affirmed the denial of state-law immunity to Hemmert and Grossi for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to Birks and Hemmert on the malicious prosecution claim and to Hemmert and Grossi on the claim of inadequate investigation, finding no clearly established law requiring the investigation to eliminate all doubts. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Aguirre-Jarquin v. Hemmert" on Justia Law

Casa Express Corp. obtained a $40 million judgment in the Southern District of New York against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for unpaid bonds and a global note. After Venezuela failed to pay, Casa sought to enforce the judgment in Florida by targeting eight Miami properties owned by corporate entities allegedly controlled by Raul Gorrin Belisario. Casa claimed that Gorrin, through a bribery and currency-exchange scheme involving Venezuelan officials, used misappropriated Venezuelan funds to purchase these properties, and argued that the properties should be subject to a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela.Casa registered the New York judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and initiated supplementary proceedings under Florida law, seeking to execute the judgment against the properties. Casa impleaded Gorrin, several individuals, and six corporate entities as third-party defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing, among other things, that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of ancillary jurisdiction, and the district court adopted this recommendation, also finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over Gorrin. Casa appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s supplementary proceedings. The court reasoned that Casa’s action sought to impose liability on third parties not previously found liable for the New York judgment and was based on new facts and legal theories unrelated to the original breach of contract claims against Venezuela. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s jurisdictional ruling, vacated its alternative merits rulings, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Casa Express Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" on Justia Law

Two individuals, both members of the Gangster Disciples gang, were prosecuted for their roles in a series of violent crimes in Georgia. The Gangster Disciples is a national criminal organization with a hierarchical structure, engaging in various illegal activities. The case centered on the aftermath of a gang member’s murder, which led to retaliatory killings. One defendant, Green, was implicated in the murders of two individuals believed to have violated gang rules, while the other, Chambers, was involved in orchestrating and carrying out another murder, as well as enforcing gang discipline.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia presided over the joint trial of Green, Chambers, and a third co-defendant. The jury convicted Green of participating in a RICO conspiracy, finding he committed or aided in two murders. Chambers was convicted of RICO conspiracy, violent crime in aid of racketeering (VICAR murder), use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and causing death with a firearm. Chambers received two consecutive life sentences plus an additional term, while Green was sentenced to life imprisonment. Chambers’ attempts to delay the trial, including self-representation and last-minute requests for counsel, were denied by the district court, which found his actions to be calculated efforts to disrupt proceedings. Both defendants challenged their convictions and sentences on various grounds, including evidentiary rulings, jury procedures, and sentencing issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support Green’s RICO conspiracy conviction and that the admission of wiretap evidence, co-conspirator statements, and other challenged exhibits was proper. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying Chambers’ motion for a continuance or in the use of an anonymous jury and shackling procedures. Sentencing and restitution decisions were also affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error. View "USA v. Green" on Justia Law

Eduardo Ulises Martinez was investigated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service after a tip that he was traveling internationally and possibly bringing back ivory. Upon his return to Miami International Airport, Customs and Border Protection found three ivory pieces in his luggage, which he initially denied were ivory. Subsequent searches of his home and business uncovered numerous sculptures containing ivory. Martinez, an experienced art dealer, admitted knowing about the legal requirements to declare ivory imports and exports but had not done so. The government charged him with multiple counts of smuggling ivory into and out of the United States, as well as obstruction of justice for attempting to influence a witness’s testimony and misrepresent the provenance of seized items.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Martinez’s pretrial motion to dismiss the smuggling charges, rejecting his argument that the antique and de minimis exceptions to ivory import/export restrictions absolved him of the duty to declare the items. The court also granted the government’s motion in limine to exclude evidence about these exceptions, finding them irrelevant to the smuggling charges. At trial, Martinez was convicted on most counts, except for three on which he was acquitted. His post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial were denied, and he was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment, with the court adopting the government’s valuation of the seized statues.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Martinez’s convictions and sentence. The court held that the antique and de minimis exceptions did not eliminate the obligation to declare ivory, and evidence about them was properly excluded. The court also found no error in the exclusion of certain interview statements, the sufficiency of the evidence for obstruction of justice, the government’s closing argument, or the sentencing methodology and valuation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted in 2017 on multiple federal charges related to the online enticement of minors and child pornography. He and the government jointly requested a psychiatric evaluation due to his autism and developmental history. Two competency hearings were held, one in 2019 and another in 2021, with expert testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists. The experts agreed he was autistic, but disagreed on his competency to stand trial. The defense argued that his autism and related impairments rendered him unable to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense, while government experts found him competent.After the first hearing, the magistrate judge recommended finding the defendant incompetent, but the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected this recommendation and found him competent, emphasizing his ability to understand the legal process and consult with counsel. The defendant later signed a plea agreement but requested a second competency hearing before entering a guilty plea. At the second hearing, new expert testimony was presented, and the magistrate judge recommended finding him competent. The district court adopted this recommendation, overruled the defendant’s objections, and accepted his guilty plea, sentencing him to 156 months in prison.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the defendant argued that the lower courts erred by placing the burden of proving incompetency on him and that the evidence showed he was not competent. The Eleventh Circuit held that the allocation of the burden of proof was immaterial because the evidence was not in equipoise; the district court’s finding of competency was not clearly erroneous. The court also rejected the argument that a higher standard of “decisional competency” applied, affirming that the correct standard was the ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the defense. The conviction was affirmed. View "USA v. Marks" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2017, an individual and two accomplices committed a series of armed robberies at Walmart stores in Florida, following a consistent pattern of masked, armed entry, coercion of store managers to access cash, and escape in stolen vehicles. The group obtained approximately $100,000 in total. After law enforcement apprehended the accomplices, one of whom was the individual’s cousin, evidence including cell phone data and testimony from a cooperating accomplice implicated the individual. He was indicted on five robbery and firearm charges.The case proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The defendant, represented by an attorney who was later disbarred, rejected two plea offers and maintained his innocence, asserting alibis for each incident. His attorney unsuccessfully attempted to secure the cousin’s testimony and sought continuances, which the court denied. At trial, the government presented testimony from the cooperating accomplice and cell phone evidence. The defendant testified in his own defense, denying involvement. The jury convicted him on all counts, and he was sentenced to 319 months’ imprisonment. His direct appeal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found no arguable issues for review.Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvising him about plea offers and failing to call his cousin as a witness. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, although counsel’s performance was deficient, the defendant failed to show prejudice as required by Strickland v. Washington. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, concluding there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s errors. View "Catrell Ivory v. USA" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers obtained and executed a search warrant for “4279 Violet Circle, Lake Worth, FL,” believing it to be a single-family home occupied by the defendant. In reality, the property included a main residence and three efficiency apartments at the back, one of which was occupied by the defendant. These apartments had no separate addresses, mailboxes, or exterior markings. During the search, officers were directed by other residents to the defendant’s apartment, where they found firearms and drugs. The defendant was subsequently charged with multiple firearm and drug offenses.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was defective under the Fourth Amendment because it listed only the main address and not his specific apartment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held an evidentiary hearing, credited the testimony of the investigating officer, and found that the officers reasonably believed the property was a single-family home based on surveillance, property records, and the lack of distinguishing features for the apartments. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to suppress, and the district court adopted this recommendation. The defendant was found guilty after a stipulated-facts bench trial and sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress. The court held that the search warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement because the officers reasonably believed, after a diligent investigation, that the property was a single-family home. The court found no evidence that the officers knew or should have known about the separate apartments before executing the warrant. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. View "United States v. Schmitz" on Justia Law

Ephren Taylor, II, formerly CEO of City Capital Corporation, was indicted in 2014 for orchestrating a fraudulent investment scheme that targeted African American and Christian communities. Taylor promoted investments and promissory notes, misrepresenting their returns and using new investor funds to pay business expenses, resulting in losses exceeding $16 million for over 400 victims. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and was sentenced to 235 months in prison, later reduced to 223 months, with restitution ordered.Taylor filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and various judicial errors. The District Court, after adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied the motion, finding Taylor’s claims either procedurally defaulted, waived, or unsupported by the record. Taylor’s subsequent Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions were also denied, and he filed multiple additional motions, including to amend or supplement his § 2255 petition and to modify conditions of supervised release. The District Court denied these later motions, determining they were unauthorized second or successive filings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b) and 2255(h), and that it lacked jurisdiction due to Taylor’s pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Taylor’s motions to reopen, supplement, and amend his original § 2255 motion, holding they were unauthorized second or successive filings barred by AEDPA’s gatekeeping provisions. The Eleventh Circuit also affirmed that Taylor’s challenges to the legality or constitutionality of his supervised release conditions could not be raised under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). However, the court vacated the District Court’s denial of Taylor’s motion to modify conditions of supervised release and remanded for consideration of the relevant statutory factors. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Joshua Gaines pleaded guilty in Alabama state court to receiving stolen property in the third degree, a Class D felony under Alabama law. Due to his criminal history, Alabama statutes at the time prohibited the court from sentencing him to any actual prison time for this offense. Instead, Gaines received a 24-month suspended sentence and was placed on probation for two years, with the possibility of community corrections or other non-prison alternatives, but not incarceration in a prison or jail. After his conviction, Gaines was notified that federal law prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Six months later, he was found in possession of a gun and admitted ownership.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama tried Gaines on two counts: possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm. After the government rested, Gaines moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that his prior conviction did not meet the federal statute’s requirement. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted him on the § 922(g)(1) count but acquitted him on the other. Gaines was sentenced to 51 months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and held that § 922(g)(1) requires a defendant-specific inquiry: the statute applies only if the defendant was actually subject to a sentence of more than one year of imprisonment in a prison or jail. Because Alabama law precluded any prison time for Gaines’s offense, his conviction did not qualify. The Eleventh Circuit vacated Gaines’s conviction and remanded with instructions to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. View "USA v. Gaines" on Justia Law

The case centers on allegations that Okaloosa County, the sponsor of Destin Executive Airport, and Jay Odom, a fixed-base operator, violated federal and Florida False Claims Acts. The dispute arose after Odom, who owned Destin Jet, allegedly acquired the only competing fixed-base operator, Miracle Strip Aviation (later Regal Air), resulting in a single entity controlling all aeronautical services at the airport. Despite this consolidation, the County continued to certify to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that it was not granting any exclusive rights, a requirement for receiving federal funding. In 2019, Robert Smith, a pilot and relator, sought to establish a competing fixed-base operator but was denied by the County, prompting him to file suit alleging false certifications in grant applications.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed Smith’s amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar applied because the essential allegations had already been reported in two 2014 news articles, which described the consolidation and the resulting grant assurance violations. The district court also determined that Smith’s complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud and denied his request for leave to further amend the complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that Smith’s claims were barred by the False Claims Act’s public disclosure provision, as the news articles had already disclosed substantially the same allegations. The court further found that Smith was not an original source of the information, as his additional details did not materially add to the public disclosures. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and its denial of leave to amend, concluding that any amendment would be futile. View "Smith v. Odom" on Justia Law