Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of ten different state criminal charges, appealed the district court's interlocutory orders requiring an Arizona state corrections official to reimburse petitioner for deposition expenses incurred in his pending habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Determining that it had interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the district court could not order a state to reimburse an indigent habeas petitioner for deposition expenses in a section 2254 habeas proceeding when, as here, the state did not request the deposition. Accordingly, the court reversed the relevant orders and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether petitioner could obtain reimbursement under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, from the federal government. View "Copeland v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 600 month sentence and conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to import methamphetamine, and distribution of methamphetamine. The court concluded that district courts should apply the Ninth Circuit's two-step approach when considering a motion to suppress wiretap evidence where the reviewing district court judge must review de novo whether the application for a wiretap contains a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. If the wiretap application meets these requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c), then the district court judge should review for abuse of discretion the issuing judge's conclusion that the wiretap was necessary. In this case, the district court judge erred when it applied an abuse of discretion standard to both determinations made by the issuing judge. Based on a de novo review of both affidavits, the court concluded that they adequately explained why the interception of wire communications was necessary to investigate this conspiracy and the target subjects, and that they contained a full and complete statement of facts to establish necessity under section 2518(1)(c). The court also held that the district court's application of 21 U.S.C. 851 to enhance defendant's sentence did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights; the district court failed to comply with section 851(b) and the error was not harmless; and two additional procedural defects warranted remand. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err by applying an upward adjustment under USSG 3B1.1 or in denying a downward adjustment under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was acquitted of murder, she filed suit against Detective Karen Thompson and Doe Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Thompson violated her constitutional rights to compulsory process and a fair trial by intimidating and attempting to dissuade a key witness from testifying on behalf of the defense, and that Thompson and Doe Defendants conspired to violate her civil rights by orchestrating criminal charges against the key witness. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff adequately alleged misconduct by Thompson that rises to the level of substantial interference with a defense witness in contravention of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; plaintiff pleaded a sufficient causal connection between Thompson's misconduct and the witness's unavailability; the fact that plaintiff was eventually acquitted does not render the witness's testimony immaterial, nor does it bar plaintiff's section 1983 action stemming from violations of her rights during the underlying criminal investigation and prosecution; the witness's testimony was material to plaintiff's defense because evidence of third-party culpability would have cast some doubt on the government's evidence at plaintiff's trial; and, likewise, plaintiff sufficiently alleged a plausible claim for civil conspiracy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Park v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 365 month sentence and conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the government failed to prove a justification for the warrantless stop and subsequent pat down, and thus the search of defendant's person was unlawful; the evidence discovered during the pat down, the glass pipe and $1450 in cash, should have been suppressed; a Fourth Amendment search waiver cannot provide a justification for a search of a probationer where the officers were unaware of the waiver before they undertook the search; the government failed to prove a valid justification for the search of defendant's car and any evidence seized from the car, including methamphetamine in baggies, should have been suppressed; but the search of defendant's home was lawful and the evidence seized was admissible. The court further concluded that the district court's error in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found on defendant's person and car was harmless as to the conspiracy conviction. However, the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence did not contribute to the jury's verdict on Count 5, and thus the court vacated defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute and remanded. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to give a multiple conspiracies instruction under either an abuse of discretion or a de novo standard of review. Finally, the court concluded that the district court failed to make an express or explicit ruling, as required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, to resolve the disputed issues and thus the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Job" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to receipt of child pornography and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his home computers pursuant to a search warrant. The district court concluded that the investigating agent did not deliberately or recklessly mislead the magistrate judge by omitting material information from the warrant application. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred in finding that the agent did not act with at least reckless disregard for the truth because he omitted facts required to prevent technically true statements in the affidavit from being misleading, and had the omitted information been included, the application would not have supported probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed, vacated, and remanded. View "United States v. Perkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a removed alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that the district court's failure to consult defendant's counsel before responding to a jury note, regarding defendant's removal date, violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 and the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the error was constitutionally harmful because much of the government's documentary evidence concerning defendant's prior removal contained demonstrable errors, and because defense counsel, had she been consulted, would have specifically requested that the trial court instruct the jury that the government was required to prove the removal date beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence and strike the special finding. On remand, the court explained that the government may elect to retry the removal date issue before a sentencing jury, or it may request that the district court resentence defendant under the two-year sentencing provision in section 1326(a). Upon remand, the court instructed that the case shall be reassigned to a different district court judge. View "United States v. Bladimir" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, and one count of possessing a false identification document with the intent to defraud the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's forfeiture order in the amount of $4,128,554.00. The court held that when a conviction for aggravated identity theft is premised on a proven or admitted violation of a predicate offense that is enumerated in the civil forfeiture statute, then forfeiture is authorized. The court concluded that the district court had statutory authority to enter a criminal forfeiture order because of defendant's conviction of aggravated identity theft, with a bank fraud predicate offense; defendant waived his Eighth Amendment claim; defendant waived his right to appeal the forfeiture order on notice grounds; and defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove the amount of proceeds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pollard" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of distributing methamphetamine, the district court imposed a special condition of supervised release prohibiting him from knowingly possessing, distributing, inhaling, or ingesting any synthetic cannabinoid. On appeal, defendant argued that this synthetic marijuana condition was unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion by imposing a special condition specifically targeting the use of synthetic marijuana; the language of the condition was sufficiently precise to avoid the vagueness concerns the court identified in United States v. Aquino; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the condition simply because it prohibits conduct also covered by one of the standard conditions prohibiting him from committing any federal, state, or local offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First and Sixth Amendment claims arising from jail employees opening legal mail outside plaintiff's presence. The district court dismissed the claims. The court clarified that, under Nordstrom v. Ryan, prisoners have a Sixth Amendment right to be present when legal mail related to a criminal matter is inspected; plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for improper opening of his incoming legal mail on November 9, 2012 and March 12, 2013; the remaining counts were properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege that the mail was properly marked as legal mail; and the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim in a concurrently filed opinion, Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Mangiaracina v. Penzone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging four instances of prison employees delivering legal mail addressed to him that had been opened before delivery, and that prison and prison officials maintained a policy or custom of ignoring the improper handling of legal mail. The district court dismissed the complaint at the pre-screening stage pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The court recognized that prisoners have a protected First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence; a plaintiff need not allege a longstanding practice of violating his First Amendment rights in order to state a claim for relief on a direct liability theory; a plaintiff need not show any actual injury beyond the free speech violation itself to state a constitutional claim; the district court properly dismissed two counts of alleged improper mail opening; the other two instances, however, do state a First Amendment claim; the district court erred in dismissing these two claims at the pre-screening stage; on remand, Defendant Burke may offer a legitimate penological reason for opening plaintiff's legal mail at either summary judgment or trial; and plaintiff waived any challenge to the dismissal of his policy-based claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center" on Justia Law