Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Darell Montrell Trotter was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. Although the indictment alleged that his conduct caused the death of an individual, DS, the plea agreement did not include this allegation. The agreement stipulated that Trotter would be sentenced within the applicable range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, but acknowledged that the court was not bound by these stipulations. The presentence investigation report calculated a Guidelines range of 135–168 months, and recommended a sentence at the bottom of the range. Trotter initially objected to the report but withdrew his objections and agreed with the recommended sentence. At sentencing, the Government presented testimony from DS’s father and argued that the Guidelines underrepresented the severity of Trotter’s conduct, urging the court to consider an upward variance.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sentenced Trotter to 168 months’ imprisonment, the top of the Guidelines range, and five years of supervised release. The court did not reference the prosecutor’s remarks in its sentencing decision. Trotter appealed, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by undermining the agreed-upon Guidelines range and advocating for a sentence above it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court found that the Government breached the plea agreement by advocating for a sentence above the Guidelines range, that this breach affected Trotter’s substantial rights, and that correcting the error was necessary to preserve the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case, allowing Trotter to either seek specific performance of the plea agreement before a new judge or withdraw from the plea agreement. View "United States v. Trotter" on Justia Law

George Jimenez was charged after sending sexually explicit messages and images to his girlfriend’s minor daughter, MV-1, and other minors, while pretending to be a thirteen-year-old boy. Over several weeks, Jimenez requested nude photographs from MV-1, specifically asking for images of her breasts and pubic area. The conduct was discovered when MV-1’s mother reported her suspicions to the FBI, who then obtained and searched both Jimenez’s and MV-1’s phones. A grand jury indicted Jimenez on multiple counts, but only the charge of coercing and enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) proceeded to a stipulated bench trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a one-day bench trial on Count One. Jimenez moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his requests amounted to a “lascivious display” and that the statute only covered physical conduct. The district court denied the motion and found Jimenez guilty, sentencing him to 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Jimenez appealed, challenging the interpretation of “sexual activity” under § 2422(b) and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding lascivious exhibition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The court held that “sexual activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) includes nonphysical conduct, such as the solicitation of sexually explicit images, and is not limited to interpersonal physical contact. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support that Jimenez attempted to coerce MV-1 to engage in the lascivious exhibition of her genitals or pubic area under 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "USA v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, whose legal permanent resident status in the United States had been revoked, was previously removed from the country multiple times following a criminal conviction. In August 2023, he entered the United States from Mexico by bus, intentionally seeking arrest in order to challenge his prior deportation and potentially regain legal status. Upon arrival at the port of entry in El Paso, he bypassed a pedestrian turnstile, was quickly apprehended by Customs and Border Protection officers, and admitted his intent to be arrested. He was indicted for illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas conducted a jury trial. The defendant did not dispute the factual basis of his entry but argued that he was not “free from official restraint” and therefore had not “entered” the United States in the legal sense. He requested a jury instruction defining “official restraint,” which the district court denied, reasoning that the concept was not an additional element of the offense and that the pattern jury instructions sufficed. The jury found him guilty of illegal re-entry, and the court entered judgment for attempted illegal re-entry, sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in refusing the requested instruction. The Fifth Circuit held that while “freedom from official restraint” is part of the definition of entry for § 1326(a), the pattern jury instruction given was a correct statement of law and adequately covered the issues. The court found that the defendant was able to present his defense theory to the jury, and thus, the absence of the requested instruction did not constitute reversible error. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez-Adame" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of sex trafficking and coercion or enticement of prostitution, each count relating to one of four women he managed as a pimp over several years. The women testified that the defendant controlled their earnings, provided necessities, and used physical abuse, threats, and manipulation—including withholding drugs—to force or coerce them into commercial sex acts. Some victims also described having their identification taken and being compelled to travel interstate for sex work. The government’s case included testimony from the victims, law enforcement officers, and documentary evidence such as online advertisements and social media posts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas presided over the trial. During the proceedings, the defense moved for a mistrial or to exclude certain witness testimony, arguing that the government failed to disclose text messages between an investigator and a victim, in violation of Brady v. Maryland and the Jencks Act. The district court denied these motions, allowed the contested testimony, and also denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The jury convicted the defendant on all but one count, and the court sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and found it sufficient to support the convictions. The court held that the missing text messages were not material under Brady or the Jencks Act, as their content was cumulative of other impeachment evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of certain testimony and Instagram posts, concluding that any evidentiary errors were either harmless or not present. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The case concerns the former President and CEO of a New Orleans-based commercial bank, who was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and making false entries in bank records. The evidence at trial showed that he, along with other bank employees and borrowers, engaged in a scheme to misrepresent the creditworthiness of certain borrowers. This allowed the bank to issue loans to insolvent individuals, who then used the proceeds to pay off overdue and overdraft loans, thereby concealing the true financial state of the bank’s loan portfolio. The defendant did not dispute the existence of these loans but argued that he lacked the intent to defraud the bank.After the bank failed in 2017, resulting in significant losses to the FDIC, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant and several co-conspirators. Some co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the defendant proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 170 months in prison and ordered to pay substantial restitution. The district court denied his post-trial motions for acquittal, arrest of judgment, and a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the admission of lay and summary testimony, and the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the government’s handling of privileged emails. The Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions, the jury instructions were proper and tracked the relevant law, the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and the government’s conduct regarding privileged material did not warrant dismissal. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict in full. View "USA v. Ryan" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was arrested after an incident in which he was accused of firing a gun into a neighbor’s trailer. Law enforcement recovered evidence at the scene and, following his arrest, the petitioner gave a written statement after being advised of his rights. He was indicted on two counts: shooting into a dwelling and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Due to a series of administrative errors, judicial conflicts, and continuances, the petitioner remained incarcerated for over three years before trial. During this period, a key defense witness died. The petitioner repeatedly asserted his right to a speedy trial through pro se motions.The Circuit Court of Tishomingo County, Mississippi, applied the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo to the petitioner’s speedy trial claim. The court found a violation as to the first count (shooting into a dwelling) but not the second (firearm possession), and dismissed only the first count. The petitioner was tried and convicted on the remaining count and sentenced as a habitual offender. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the speedy trial right could be analyzed and remedied on a count-by-count basis in a multi-count indictment. The Mississippi Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied further review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case on habeas corpus. The court held that, under clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, when a speedy trial violation is found, the only permissible remedy is dismissal of the entire indictment, not just the affected count. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Mississippi appellate court’s approach was an unreasonable application of federal law. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus. View "Berryman v. Huffman" on Justia Law

Juan Alaniz was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Alaniz had prior state felony convictions for illegally possessing a controlled substance and for burglary. He challenged his conviction on constitutional grounds, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, violated the Second Amendment on its face, and violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and entered a conviction against Alaniz. On appeal, Alaniz raised the same constitutional arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He specifically argued that only his controlled substance conviction should be considered as the predicate for his § 922(g)(1) conviction, and that his burglary conviction should not be relevant to the constitutional analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Alaniz’s Commerce Clause and facial Second Amendment challenges, citing circuit precedent. The court reviewed his as-applied Second Amendment challenge de novo and held that the government may consider Alaniz’s entire criminal record, including his burglary conviction, when evaluating the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. The court found that founding-era laws support the constitutionality of disarming individuals convicted of burglary. Therefore, Alaniz’s as-applied challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Alaniz" on Justia Law

A group of individuals with large social media followings was charged with securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The government alleged that these individuals engaged in a “pump and dump” scheme: they would purchase securities, then use their social media platforms to post false or misleading information about those securities to induce their followers to buy, thereby artificially inflating the price. After the price increased, the defendants would sell their holdings for a profit. The indictment claimed that the defendants collectively profited $114 million from this scheme.After indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, one defendant pleaded guilty while the others moved to dismiss the indictment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the indictment failed to allege a scheme to deprive victims of a traditional property interest, instead only alleging deprivation of valuable economic information. The district court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ciminelli v. United States, which held that deprivation of economic information alone does not constitute fraud under federal law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment de novo. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the indictment adequately alleged both a scheme to defraud and an intent to defraud, as required by the securities fraud statute. The court distinguished the case from Ciminelli, finding that the indictment alleged a fraudulent-inducement theory—whereby the defendants used misrepresentations to induce followers to part with money by purchasing securities—not merely a deprivation of information. The court also held that the fraud statutes do not require proof that the defendants intended to cause economic harm, only that they intended to obtain money or property by deceit. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA v. Constantinescu" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas in 2010 for the killing of his fiancée’s thirteen-month-old daughter. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on DNA evidence and forensic testimony. Over the years, the petitioner pursued multiple avenues of postconviction relief, including direct appeal, state habeas petitions, and federal habeas petitions, all of which were denied. In 2024, he sought access to additional electronic DNA data from the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, arguing that this information was necessary to evaluate the reliability of the forensic evidence used at trial. After being denied access by the district attorney and the convicting court, he filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures violated his due process rights by giving prosecutors unreviewable discretion to withhold evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a due process violation and that his request for an injunction resembled an improper petition for a writ of mandamus. The district court also denied his motion for discovery. The petitioner appealed and, in the interim, sought a stay of execution and authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on new evidence and scientific developments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures do not violate due process, as they provide adequate opportunities for discovery and judicial review in habeas proceedings. The court also denied the motions for a stay of execution and for authorization to file a successive habeas petition, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements for such relief. The court granted leave to file a motion in excess of the word limit. View "In Re: Milam" on Justia Law

Celia Ignacia Esquivel-Bataz, a Mexican citizen, was previously convicted of making a false statement to obtain credit and deported in 2012. In April 2025, she was found by ICE agents at an illegal gambling parlor in Houston. She was indicted for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). ICE lodged an immigration detainer against her, indicating that she would be taken into custody and removed to Mexico if released.A magistrate judge initially found that Esquivel-Bataz was not a flight risk and ordered her release on bond pending trial. The Government responded with an emergency motion to stay and revoke the release order, which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted. Esquivel-Bataz then moved for pretrial release, and the district court held an evidentiary hearing. After hearing testimony, including from an ICE officer about the detainer’s effect, the district court denied her motion, finding her to be a flight risk based on her criminal history, Mexican citizenship, prior deportation, and current unlawful presence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying pretrial release. The Fifth Circuit clarified that the district court did not treat the immigration detainer or potential deportation as flight risk per se, but rather considered the totality of circumstances, including individualized factors required by the Bail Reform Act. The order denying pretrial release was affirmed. View "United States v. Esquivel-Bataz" on Justia Law