Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In October 2022, NCIS investigators obtained a military warrant to seize but not search Joshua Lee Ray's cell phone. Despite this, they searched the phone and found evidence of child sexual abuse material. Ray moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment as the warrant did not authorize it. The district court granted the motion.The Government appealed, conceding the warrant did not authorize the search, there was no verbal authorization, and the warrant did not incorporate an affidavit requesting authorization. The Government argued the search was justified under the good faith exception.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Government could not rely on the good faith exception because the warrant was not deficient; it simply did not authorize the search. The court emphasized that the NCIS exceeded the scope of the valid warrant, and the good faith exception did not apply to such conduct. The court affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. View "US v. Ray" on Justia Law

Three defendants, Brayan Alexander Contreras-Avalos, Jairo Arnaldo Jacome, and Luis Arnoldo Flores-Reyes, were charged with various crimes related to their involvement in the MS-13 gang, including racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, and drug distribution conspiracy. The charges stemmed from a series of violent acts, including the murders of Anner Duarte-Lopez and Raymond Wood. After a two-week trial, the jury found all three defendants guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced each to life in prison.The defendants appealed their convictions. Jacome and Flores-Reyes argued that two misstatements in the district court’s oral jury instructions, which were corrected in the written instructions, required the reversal of their convictions for murder in aid of racketeering. All three defendants also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against them. The district court had denied their motions for acquittal or a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the two misstatements in the oral jury instructions did not require reversal because the written instructions provided to the jury were correct, and the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that Jacome and Flores-Reyes committed or aided and abetted the murders and that Contreras-Avalos was involved in the racketeering and drug distribution conspiracies. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and sentences of all three defendants. View "US v. Contreras-Avalos" on Justia Law

On January 9, 2021, Xzavier D. Hill, an 18-year-old, was shot and killed by Virginia State Troopers Seth W. Layton and Benjamin I. Bone. Hill's estate, represented by his mother, LaToya K. Benton, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the troopers used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and committed state law torts. The troopers moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion, finding that the troopers' actions were objectively reasonable and that no clearly established law indicated their conduct was unconstitutional.The district court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity on both the constitutional and clearly established prongs. The court determined that the troopers reasonably believed Hill posed a danger by disobeying commands and reaching towards what they perceived to be a handgun. The court also concluded that there was no precedent clearly establishing that the troopers' actions were unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the state law tort claims, as they were dependent on the success of the federal excessive force claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that all three Graham factors—severity of the crime, immediate threat to officers, and resisting arrest or evading arrest by flight—favored the troopers. The court also determined that there was no Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent that clearly established the troopers' conduct as unconstitutional. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Benton v. Layton" on Justia Law

Samuel Joseph was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during two encounters with law enforcement. The first encounter occurred in Charleston, West Virginia, where an officer, after receiving a tip about possible drug activity, observed Joseph's suspicious behavior and items consistent with drug distribution in a motel room. Joseph was apprehended after fleeing from officers, and a search of his duffel bag, which he abandoned during the chase, revealed drugs and firearms.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Joseph's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the encounters. Joseph argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on their observations and Joseph's behavior, and that the subsequent search and seizure were lawful.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Joseph based on their observations and his unprovoked flight. The court also found that the officers' actions following the stop, including the use of a drug-detection dog and obtaining a search warrant for the duffel bag, were permissible and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the court rejected Joseph's arguments regarding the lack of bodycam footage and the reliability of the initial tip, as well as his claim that the traffic stop in Parkersburg was impermissibly prolonged. The court concluded that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and upheld the denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

Edwin Leo Brown was indicted in October 2016 on four counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government had evidence of Brown selling cocaine base and discovered a firearm upon his arrest. Brown faced up to 90 years in prison. His attorney, Frank Harper, initially advised him that he was likely facing up to 120 months’ imprisonment and presented two plea agreements limiting his prison exposure to ten years. Brown, skeptical of Harper’s advice, did not trust him and Harper withdrew as counsel. Brett Wentz then became Brown’s attorney and erroneously advised him that his sentencing exposure would be the same whether he accepted a plea deal or not. Brown rejected the plea offers and later pleaded guilty to all counts, receiving a 210-month sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina found that Brown’s attorney performed deficiently but concluded that Brown failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by his attorney’s advice. The magistrate judge recommended denying Brown’s motion to vacate his sentence, stating that Brown presented no contemporaneous evidence to support his claim that he would have accepted the plea agreement if properly advised. The district court adopted this recommendation and denied Brown’s motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court erred in applying the standard from Lee v. United States, which concerns accepted plea deals, to Brown’s case involving a rejected plea deal. The Fourth Circuit held that Brown demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea offer if properly advised, given the significant disparity between the plea offer and the sentence he received. The court reversed the district court’s denial of relief, remanded the case, and required the government to re-offer Brown the same plea agreements. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

David Nutter was indicted in August 2021 for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits individuals with convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms or ammunition. Nutter had three prior convictions in Ohio for domestic violence and child endangerment. He acknowledged possessing firearms and did not dispute his prior convictions but moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(9) violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Nutter's motion, applying the means-end analysis from District of Columbia v. Heller. Nutter entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. After the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which rejected the means-end analysis, Nutter filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that § 922(g)(9) was unconstitutional under the new framework. The district court again denied the motion, concluding that § 922(g)(9) was consistent with the Nation's history and tradition of disarming individuals deemed a threat to public safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional, finding that it fits within the historical tradition of disarming individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others. The court noted that the statute's purpose and method align with historical analogues, such as surety and going armed laws, which were designed to mitigate demonstrated threats of physical violence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Nutter's motion to dismiss the indictment and upheld his conviction. View "United States v. Nutter" on Justia Law

Vincent Deritis was convicted by a jury of four offenses involving child sexual abuse material. Count One involved using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for producing a visual depiction, based on a video of his stepdaughter showering. Counts Two and Three involved similar charges based on photographs of his stepdaughter while she was sleeping. Count Four involved possession of child sexual abuse material. The district court sentenced him to 600 months of imprisonment and imposed a special assessment of $117,000.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied Deritis's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Google account, finding that the evidence was obtained from an independent source. The court also denied his Rule 29 motion for acquittal on Counts One and Two, finding substantial evidence supported the convictions. Additionally, the court excluded exculpatory testimony from Deritis's ex-wife, which Deritis argued was impermissible hearsay. The district court instructed the jury on the definition of "lascivious exhibition" using the Dost factors, which Deritis challenged as erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, since the evidence was obtained from an independent source. The court found that the jury instruction on "lascivious exhibition" was proper and consistent with precedent. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the convictions on Counts One and Two. The exclusion of the exculpatory testimony was deemed harmless error. However, the court found that the district court plainly erred by imposing a special assessment without considering the mandatory statutory factors on the record.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the special assessment and remanded for resentencing on that issue. View "U.S. v. Deritis" on Justia Law

In October 2018, a sheriff’s deputy in Smyth County, Virginia, stopped Ashley Langley for erratic driving. Langley admitted there were drugs in the vehicle, and a search revealed methamphetamine, distribution paraphernalia, and a firearm. Langley and her passengers informed officers that more drugs were at Langley’s residence, where her out-of-state supplier, Jerada Henderson, was staying. Officers obtained a warrant to search Langley’s home, where they found more methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, a firearm, and two cell phones belonging to Henderson. Henderson was arrested and charged with drug and firearm offenses.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Henderson’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phones, finding the warrant valid and the officers’ reliance on it reasonable. The court also rejected Henderson’s proposed jury instruction regarding the insufficiency of a single drug transaction to prove conspiracy. Henderson was convicted of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy but acquitted of firearm charges. The district court calculated his sentence, attributing to him drugs sold by Langley before his October 2018 delivery and applying a firearm enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, finding the officers’ reliance on the warrant reasonable. The court also upheld the rejection of Henderson’s proposed jury instruction, noting that evidence of a substantial drug quantity can support a conspiracy conviction. Finally, the court found no clear error in the district court’s drug quantity calculation or the application of the firearm enhancement, affirming Henderson’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Steven Fulton was convicted by a jury of knowingly making a false statement in connection with the attempted acquisition of a firearm. The evidence showed that Fulton denied having any felony convictions on a background check form at a gun shop in North Carolina, despite having a prior felony conviction in New Jersey. The district court overturned the jury’s verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal, reasoning that the Government did not present evidence to the jury demonstrating that Fulton’s New Jersey offense was punishable by more than a year in prison. The district court also conditionally granted Fulton a new trial in case the acquittal was reversed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. The district court granted Fulton’s motion for acquittal, holding that the Government failed to prove that Fulton’s New Jersey conviction was a felony. The court reasoned that the criminal judgment did not define a third-degree offense, did not include the word “felony,” and did not identify the maximum punishment for the offense. The district court also conditionally granted a new trial, citing insufficient evidence of Fulton’s knowledge that he was a felon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment of acquittal, holding that the Government had introduced sufficient evidence to prove that Fulton’s New Jersey conviction was a felony punishable by more than one year in prison. The court determined that whether a crime is punishable by more than one year in prison is a legal question for the judge to determine, not a factual question for the jury. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s conditional grant of a new trial, finding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The case was remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict. View "US v. Fulton" on Justia Law

Samir Fernandes Baptista, a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Massachusetts of unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal. During his removal proceedings, the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that this state crime is categorically an aggravated felony attempted theft offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Consequently, the immigration judge ordered Baptista removed for committing an aggravated felony after admission, and the BIA upheld this order.Baptista appealed the BIA's decision, arguing that his conviction does not qualify as an attempted theft offense under the INA. He contended that under Massachusetts law, a defendant could be convicted of unarmed assault by stealing property with the victim’s fraudulently obtained consent, which would make the state offense broader than the generic federal theft offense that requires the taking to be against the victim’s will. Baptista also argued that his conviction cannot qualify as an attempt because it does not require a defendant to commit an overt act toward a taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA's legal conclusion de novo. The court concluded that the Massachusetts unarmed assault statute requires the taking to be against the victim’s will and involves force and violence, making it a categorical match to a generic federal theft offense. Additionally, the court found that the statute requires an overt act constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the theft, thus qualifying as an attempted theft offense under the INA. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Baptista’s petition for review. View "Baptista v. Bondi" on Justia Law