Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for bankruptcy fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, scheme to commit wire fraud against the United States and the Blackfeet Indian Tribe, and conspiracy to submit false claims. Defendant's conviction on Count 1 rested on a charge for which the jury instructions did not match the indictment. At issue is whether an error in jury instructions here amounted to “plain error” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The court overruled United States v. Caldwell to the extent that it held that the failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime is per se prejudicial. The court held that Caldwell is inconsistent with the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Neder v. United States, which does not permit a jury instruction error to be considered a structural error. In this case, although defendant did not object to the invalid jury instructions at trial regarding Count 1, he has not intentionally relinquished or abandoned his ability to challenge them on appeal, and such error was plain or obvious because the jury instructions clearly do not match the indictment. However, the court concluded that the prosecution adequately proved the missing element of the crime, and that there is not a “reasonable probability” that the error in jury instructions affected the outcome. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Conti" on Justia Law

Defendant and his two cousins were convicted of various crimes arising out of their attempt to rob a federal officer, who was posing as a buyer of illegal firearms. The court rejected defendant's contention that no reasonable jury could have rejected his claim of self-defense with respect to the assault charge under 18 U.S.C. 111(b) where the evidence does not support defendant's version of events so decisively that a rational jury would have been compelled to believe him; there was sufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2114(a) where the agent actually had the buy money in his charge, control, or custody; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 where the jury could reasonably have concluded that the scope of the conspirators’ agreement was not limited to assaulting and robbing an acquaintance; and the court concluded that defendant did not need to know that the buy money the agent had in his custody belonged to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mobley" on Justia Law