Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner challenged the district court's transfer of his habeas petition to the Fifth Circuit based on the ground that the petition was second or successive. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the transfer order, holding that there was no intervening judgment here because the 2014 Texas Court of Criminal Appeal decision was not the one authorizing petitioner's confinement. In the alternative, the Fifth Circuit found that petitioner had made a requisite prima facie showing to file a successive habeas petition and the court granted his motion for authorization to file a successive petition. In this case, petitioner's Atkins claim relied on a previously unavailable new rule of constitutional law and his Atkins claim had merit. View "In Re: Eric Cathey" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that a superseding indictment is lawful when returned by a grand jury located in the venue where the alleged crime occurred but from which the case has been transferred. Furthermore, it was not reversible error to include definitions of "offer" and "promise" that defendant wanted in the jury charge on bribery where these terms were not so technical or inscrutable that a definition was necessary. In this case, defendant was first convicted of money laundering and facing a sentence before a federal judge in Austin. Defendant was then charged with bribing the federal judge in Austin, successfully obtained a transfer of the bribery case to federal court in Louisiana, and found guilty of both conspiring to bribe and offering a bribe to the judge presiding over his money laundering case. View "United States v. Colorado Cessa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) for use of a dangerous weapon, concluding that shoes in conjunction with the hard ground constitute a dangerous weapon. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to a bill of information for misprision of a felony after he used his shoe to stomp the victim's head against the solid prison floor. View "United States v. Velasco" on Justia Law

The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from an initial stop, holding that a state computer database indication of insurance status may establish reasonable suspicion when the officer was familiar with the database and the system itself was reliable. Officers initially stopped defendant after a computer search lead to the discovery that he was in the country illegally and was harboring undocumented immigrants at his residence. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens. In this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the officer's testimony provided sufficient support for the reliability of the database where the officer explained the process for inputting license plate information, described how records in the database were kept, and noted that he was familiar with these records. View "United States v. Broca-Martinez" on Justia Law

After a jury convicted Lisa Jo Chamberlin of two counts of capital murder and sentenced her to death, the district court granted habeas relief on the ground that the state court erred in finding that there was no racial exclusion of jurors at her trial. Chamberlin, a white defendant, had challenged the exclusion of black jurors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that the Mississippi court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 18 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). In this case, the court explained that clear and convincing evidence, including more damning comparative juror analysis than existed in Miller-El v. Dretke or Reed v. Quarterman, rebuts the state court's finding of no discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chamberlin v. Fisher, Commissioner" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for his involvement in a murder-for-hire, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The court denied a COA as to the procedural default ruling because the grounds petitioner cited for cause were either not raised in the district court or sought an extension of Martinez/Trevino beyond the realm of ineffective assistance claims for which there was no supporting authority. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to met the COA standard for any of his claims relating to the failure to disclose the circumstances surrounding a codefendant's confession; claims relating to the denial of petitioner's right to present mitigating evidence; claims of error for the trial court to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of past adjudicated offenses; and a claim that petitioner did not pull the trigger in the victim's murder. Accordingly, the court denied the application of COA. View "Prystash v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to being a felon in possession. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for narcotics trafficking, contending that prosecution of the charges is barred by the terms of a 2012 plea agreement. The court explained that information leading to that charge was obtained during the course of the Government's investigation of defendant for public corruption and narcotics trafficking, which eventually gave rise to the charges in the instant indictment. The court agreed with the district court that the instant charges were based on a separate and distinct course of conduct from the felon in possession offense to which defendant plead guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McClure" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the identities of confidential informants and his motion to suppress. Defendant also challenged the factual basis of his guilty plea. The court rejected defendant's arguments regarding his motion to compel disclosure and the factual basis of his guilty plea. However, the court vacated defendant's convictions and sentences for additional fact findings, remanding for the district court to determine whether Officer Parkinson included the false statement at issue intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. If after making the intent finding, the district court again denies defendant's motion to suppress, the district court shall reinstate the convictions and sentences, and defendant may then appeal. View "United States v. Ortega" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 2, and to one count of using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that the minimal interstate commerce nexus that the court's precedent requires for prosecution under section 2119 was satisfied, and that carjacking is a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal task force officer, was indicted for manslaughter after he unintentionally shot and killed an unarmed suspect while trying to arrest the suspect. The district court dismissed the indictment, applying the doctrine of Supremacy Clause immunity. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction according to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, and defendant's assertion of a colorable federal defense; concluded that the district court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss because he is entitled to immunity from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution; but noted that, even if a federal officer satisfies every element of the immunity standard, the Supremacy Clause cannot shield the officer from federal consequences, such as prosecution by federal authorities or civil liability under federal law. The court affirmed the judgment. View "State of Texas v. Kleinert" on Justia Law