Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana and heroin. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erroneously failed to suppress incriminating evidence that government agents obtained from an allegedly unconstitutional stop and ultimate arrest. The court held that much of the agents' conduct was reasonable and thus constitutional. However, the court held that the district court erred by admitting evidence obtained from an unconstitutional, post-arrest search of a cell phone in defendant's possession. The court found that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the phone in his possession during the lawful vehicle stop. The court explained that the DEA agent's post-arrest manual search of the phone at the Border Patrol station was a distinct search requiring independent justification. Because the error was harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Escamilla, Jr." on Justia Law

Six defendants appealed their convictions for Medicare fraud, as well as paying and receiving kickbacks for referrals. Defendants' scheme involved fraudulently billing Medicare for services provided at a community mental health center. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant; the indictment does not present any reversible error; the court rejected claims of evidentiary errors; the court rejected claims of error regarding the jury instructions; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and substantive health care fraud, as well as the kickback counts; there was no Eighth Amendment problem with the forfeiture order; and the court agreed with the government that the district court erred by deciding to offset defendants' restitution obligations with any amount collected pursuant to the forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court modified the restitution and forfeiture orders to eliminate the offset. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanjar" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) on five claims for habeas relief. The court denied a COA on petitioner's claim that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from informing the jurors about the parole implications of a life sentence, because this claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also denied a COA on his claim that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to (a) comments by the prosecutor supposedly implicating petitioner's right not to testify and (b) the guilt/innocence-phase discussion of petitioner's extraneous offenses. The court explained that petitioner failed to present a colorable argument that the state court's finding defense counsel’s trial strategy reasonable was unreasonable. The court granted a COA on petitioner's claims that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from presenting mitigating childhood photographs of himself to the jury during the sentencing phase; that the convicting court unconstitutionally permitted the jury to hear testimony about the possibility of release on furlough for capital defendants sentenced to life in prison; and that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky when it exercised racially motivated peremptory strikes against two prospective jurors. View "Rhoades v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after pleading guilty to attempting to use a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. The court agreed with defendant's argument that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to comply with its obligations and to recommend a low-end sentence, instead of recommending and arguing for a high-end sentence. The court concluded that the breach constituted reversible plain error because the error had a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or pubic reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kirkland" on Justia Law

After Lesa Ann Surratt died as a result of complications of asphyxia due to airway obstruction by a plastic bag, her sister filed suit against defendants for excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, violation of due process, and conspiracy, as well as Texas state-law claims for wrongful death, assault and battery, and breach of fiduciary duty. Officers had pulled over Surratt for a traffic violation and when they noticed that she put something into her mouth, they attempted to remove it. Surratt was unresponsive and having a seizure by the time the officers were able to remove her from the car. An ambulance was called and the plastic baggie was removed from her throat with forceps. Surratt died thirteen days later. The district court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded, assuming without deciding that the officers' conduct violated Surratt's constitutional rights, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the officers acted objectively unreasonabe in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident. In this case, no previous law has provided guidance regarding what was precisely reasonable and what was unreasonable regarding the use of force to an individual's throat where the individual appeared to be concealing something in their mouth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Surratt v. McClarin" on Justia Law

Defendant Abraham Fisch, a criminal defense attorney, was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax evasion. Defendant and Lloyd Williams, a former FBI informant, would approach defendants who had criminal charges pending against them and told the defendants to pay them large sums of money as purported legal fees. Fisch and Williams promised to use the money to pay off federal officials but, in actuality, had no such government contacts. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the offenses; Fisch failed to make out a Fifth Amendment violation based on the denial of a hearing regarding the lis pendens on his home; Fisch failed to establish a Sixth Amendment violation by the government's seeking a lis pendens on his home as an asset traceable to his criminal proceeds; Fisch failed to make the requisite showing of prosecutorial misconduct; the court rejected Fisch's challenges to the jury instructions; and the court rejected Fisch's challenges to the district court's post-trial forfeiture orders. The court declined to address Fisch's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to all issues except the denial of Fisch's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "United States v. Fisch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for filing false liens or encumbrances. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a jury could conclude from the filings at issue that defendant was attempting to file false liens or encumbrances; the district court did not abuse its discretion by answering a jury note where, among other things, responding would have conflicted with the jury instructions; and the district court did not err by adding a six-level enhancement under USSG 2A6.1(b)(1) for threatening or harassing communications where there was evidence that defendant threatened to file liens. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq., he was sentenced to a prison term followed by ten years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged five conditions of supervised released. The court found that the district court acted within its discretion by imposing a special condition requiring defendant to undergo sex offender treatment; the district court abused its discretion by imposing a special condition prohibiting purchase, possession, or use of sexually stimulating materials; the district court also erred, as a matter of law, by imposing a special condition requiring defendant to "follow all other lifestyle restrictions . . . imposed by the therapist"; the judgment must be reformed to omit a special condition prohibiting defendant from "residing or going to places" frequented by minors without permission from his probation officer because that special condition was not pronounced orally at sentencing; and the judgment must be reformed to omit a "standard" sex offender treatment condition that largely overlapped with, but materially differed from, the similar "special" condition that was orally pronounced at sentencing and included separately in the written judgment. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to a discrete aspect of the treatment condition, concluding that the district court retained its power to sentence defendant and did not improperly delegate it to the doctor. View "United States v. Huor" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a murder-for-hire scheme. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing defendant's former cell-mate to testify because defendant failed to point to any evidence showing that the government affirmatively enticed the cellmate to solicit any information from defendant. The court concluded that the mere presence of some conflicting evidence in the record does not render a jury verdict improper, and the court rejected defendant's challenges to the credibility of the witnesses where their criminal history, drug problems, trustworthiness and past relationships with defendant all came out at trial and were presumably considered by the jury. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bates" on Justia Law

Defendants Perry, Chapman, and Boyer appealed their convictions for various offenses related to their participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy. The Government cross-appealed the district court's calculation of the mandatory minimum sentence on one of Perry's two convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), arguing that the district court erred in failing to impose the 25-year mandatory minimum. The court concluded that the district court erred in declining to apply the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence required by section 924(c)(1)(C) to one of Perry's section 924(c) convictions where, applying the rule of lenity, the lowest mandatory minimum sentence should be considered the first conviction. Therefore, the court vacated Perry's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chapman" on Justia Law