Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
by
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

by
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

by
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

by
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

by
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

by
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

by
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

by
Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after officers pulled him over for suspicious activity and subsequently arrested him for resisting a search. The district court granted the officers' motion to dismiss all claims. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention. In this case, the most the officer could have observed was a man (plaintiff) briefly looking around a vehicle in the parking lot, turning to get into a car, noticing a police car, continuing to get into the car, and beginning to drive further into the parking lot. This was not a "headlong flight," nor "evasive" behavior. The court also concluded that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff for resisting a search under Texas law, and because no objectively reasonable officer would conclude that such probable cause did exist, the court held that plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim; and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from that claim at the motion to dismiss stage. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff did not state a valid claim for retaliation under either the First or Fifth Amendments. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's alleged injuries—though perhaps not sufficient on their own to satisfy the de minimis requirement—were enough to support a claim for excessive force at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Alexander v. City of Round Rock" on Justia Law

by
Defendant, owner of a wholesale salon equipment business, appealed his 36 month sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false and fraudulent tax return. The court held that the district court did not clearly err when it determined, based on the circumstantial evidence, that it was more likely than not that defendant participated in his customers' structuring activities. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upward variance to defendant's sentence where the district court explained that it was imposing the above-Guidelines sentence based on a variety of factors, including, inter alia, the magnitude of defendant's dishonesty and unwillingness to abide by society's rules, the aggravated nature of the criminal conduct, and defendant's exceptional business success had a significant foundation in his unlawful activity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of bank robbery and aiding and abetting thereof. Defendant argued that the district court deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself and that the court reversibly erred in denying a continuance. The court concluded that defendant's relinquishment of his right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of counsel from full representation did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where defendant failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice resulting from the denial of a continuance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mesquiti" on Justia Law