Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Klaudio Sterkaj was charged with transporting aliens within the United States after being stopped by the New York State Police while driving two Albanian citizens who had entered the U.S. illegally. He waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the charge. The government recommended a sentence of 6 to 12 months, while the U.S. Probation Office suggested 0 to 6 months. However, the District Court imposed a 24-month sentence, citing Sterkaj's refusal to cooperate with the government as a factor.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York adopted the Probation Office's findings but varied upward from the recommended sentence due to Sterkaj's lack of cooperation. Sterkaj's counsel objected to the sentence as being outside the guidelines, preserving the argument for appeal. Sterkaj then appealed the sentence, arguing that the District Court committed procedural error by considering his refusal to cooperate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court's decision to increase Sterkaj's sentence based on his refusal to cooperate was procedurally unreasonable. The Court of Appeals held that under United States v. Stratton, a district court may not increase a defendant's sentence due to their refusal to cooperate. The Court rejected the government's argument that intervening Supreme Court decisions had cast doubt on Stratton, maintaining that Stratton remains binding precedent.The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence component of Sterkaj's judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the District Court for resentencing by a different judge to preserve the appearance of justice. View "United States v. Sterkaj" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Josue Ortiz, claimed that Detective Mark Stambach fabricated and coerced a confession from him regarding a double homicide in 2004. Ortiz, who suffered from severe mental illness, was subsequently charged and convicted based on this false confession. In 2012, a reinvestigation revealed Ortiz's innocence, leading to the conviction of three other individuals for the murders. Ortiz's conviction was vacated, and he was released in 2014 after over a decade of wrongful imprisonment. A jury found Detective Stambach liable for malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, and violating Ortiz’s right against self-incrimination, awarding Ortiz $5 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied Detective Stambach’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur. Stambach argued that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find in favor of Ortiz on any of the claims and that the damages awarded were excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings on all three causes of action. The court noted that the jury could reasonably infer from the circumstantial evidence that Detective Stambach fabricated the confession and acted in bad faith. The court also found that the jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages was justified based on the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the jury’s verdict and the damages awarded to Ortiz. View "Ortiz v. Wagstaff" on Justia Law

In 2019, Xin “Chris” Gu, a protégé of Qing Ming “Allen” Yu, was shot and killed. Yu, angered by Gu's departure from his company and subsequent competition, conspired with Zhe Zhang and others to murder Gu. Yu promised Zhang business connections in exchange for his participation in the murder. Zhang, along with other conspirators, planned and executed the murder, with Zhang acting as the getaway driver. Both Yu and Zhang were charged with conspiracy to commit murder for hire and murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicted both defendants on both counts and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The defendants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of an agreement involving pecuniary value, a mid-trial change in the government's theory, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and an erroneous interpretation of the mandatory minimum sentence under section 1958(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the promise of business connections constituted something of pecuniary value, thus supporting the jury's finding of guilt. The court found no basis in precedent for the defendants' claim of a due-process right against surprise by the government's theory. The court also determined that the withheld evidence was not material and did not prejudice the defendants. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that section 1958(a) imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the convictions and life sentences of both defendants. View "United States v. Zhang" on Justia Law

Darrell Robinson was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), after law enforcement officers found six firearms in his vehicle during a search. Robinson pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The district court also imposed a special condition of supervised release that allowed for the search of Robinson’s electronic devices upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of a condition of supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) without modification and imposed the special search condition as recommended in the PSR. Robinson did not object to the PSR or the special condition during sentencing but later moved to correct the judgment, arguing that the electronic search condition was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The district court denied the motion, finding that it had met its obligation by referencing the PSR.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed Robinson’s appeal, where he argued that the electronic search condition was not orally pronounced, was procedurally unreasonable, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that the district court’s reference to the PSR was sufficient to impose the special condition, and the need for the condition was self-evident given Robinson’s extensive criminal history and dishonesty with law enforcement. The court also held that the condition, which required reasonable suspicion, did not violate Robinson’s Fourth Amendment rights due to his diminished expectation of privacy while on supervised release.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the special condition of supervised release allowing for the search of Robinson’s electronic devices. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The case involves Salifou Conde, who was convicted of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit both frauds. The fraudulent activities were related to the theft of rent assistance checks from New York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA). These checks, intended for qualifying individuals' landlords, were often returned as undeliverable and subsequently misappropriated by Conde and his co-conspirators. The fraudulent checks were deposited into various bank accounts, including Conde's, and used to pay for services such as cable and internet.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Conde was found guilty on all counts following a jury trial. He was sentenced to 55 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. The evidence against him included bank records, ATM surveillance footage, and an electronically generated record from a telecommunication company showing payments for services linked to the fraudulent bank accounts.Conde appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the telecommunication company's record was improperly admitted as a self-authenticating business record, violating his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and found no error. The court held that the record was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11) as a business record, and its admission did not violate Conde's confrontation rights. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Conde" on Justia Law

Mirsad Kandic, a legal permanent resident of the United States, relocated to Syria in 2013 to serve as a foreign fighter for ISIS. He later moved to Turkey, where he became a recruiter and emir for ISIS media, using social media to spread propaganda and assist recruits. Kandic also ran an online weapons market, smuggled money into Syria, created false passports, and provided intelligence to ISIS leadership. He recruited Jake Bilardi, an Australian teenager, who later became a suicide bomber, resulting in over 30 deaths. Kandic was arrested in Sarajevo in 2017 and extradited to the Eastern District of New York.A grand jury indicted Kandic on six counts, including conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS and substantive violations of providing material support. The district court denied Kandic's motion to dismiss the conspiracy count, and a jury found him guilty on all counts. The jury also found that the conspiracy resulted in the death of Jake Bilardi and other individuals. Kandic was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment and four concurrent terms of 20 years' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. Kandic argued that the conspiracy count was impermissibly duplicitous, the remaining counts were multiplicitous, and the district court abused its discretion by excluding certain evidence. The Second Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that the conspiracy count was not impermissibly duplicitous because the jury was properly instructed on unanimity and the special verdict sheet ensured a unanimous verdict. The court also found that the remaining counts were not multiplicitous and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the hearsay evidence. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "U.S. v. Kandic" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Alexander Arguedas pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to charges of racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, and using and carrying firearms in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy. The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 390 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $300. The court also imposed mandatory, standard, and special conditions of supervised release. Arguedas appealed, and his appellate counsel moved to be relieved and for the appointment of substitute counsel, submitting a brief in accordance with Anders v. California.The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver in the plea agreement or, alternatively, for summary affirmance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the Anders brief was incomplete because it did not address Arguedas’s conditions of supervised release, which fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. The court held that such a deficiency in an Anders brief is not necessarily fatal if it is harmless. The court concluded that there were no non-frivolous issues with respect to the mandatory, standard, and five of the seven special conditions of supervised release, making the deficiency harmless in those respects.However, the court identified potential non-frivolous issues regarding two special conditions concerning financial disclosure and new lines of credit. As a result, the court deferred decision on the motions and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing to address these conditions. The court directed appellate counsel to determine whether Arguedas wishes to appeal these conditions and to discuss any non-frivolous issues they might raise. The government was also directed to respond to the supplemental briefing. View "United States v. Arguedas" on Justia Law

Isaac Poole, while on supervised release for prior drug offenses, tested positive for cocaine, and probation officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in his home. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment followed by ninety-six months of supervised release. As a condition of his supervised release, the court required Poole to submit to suspicionless searches by probation officers or law enforcement officers assisting them. Poole appealed this condition, arguing it was unsupported by the record and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York initially handled Poole's case. After his release from prison, Poole began his supervised release in Syracuse, New York. Following a positive drug test and the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia in his home, the court modified his supervised release conditions to include suspicionless searches. Poole admitted to possessing and using illegal drugs, leading to the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of the new conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the suspicionless search condition. The court found that Poole's pattern of illegal drug activity, including while on supervised release, justified the condition. The court concluded that the condition served the purposes of deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation, and enabled probation officers to fulfill their statutory duties. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the suspicionless search condition as both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Poole" on Justia Law

Kenneth Darrah exchanged messages with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as the mother of a nine-year-old girl. During these exchanges, Darrah sent an audiovisual file of child pornography through the Kik Messenger application, expecting to receive a picture of the child in return. He pled guilty to distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2)(A) and was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to 106 months in prison and 20 years of supervised release.Darrah appealed, challenging the procedural reasonableness of a five-level increase for distribution of child pornography under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(3)(B), the substantive reasonableness of his 106-month sentence, and a special condition of supervised release limiting him to one internet-capable device. The district court had calculated a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Despite objections, the court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 106 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It found that the district court erred in applying the five-level increase because there was no evidence of an agreement to exchange anything of value, as required under the amended U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(3)(B). However, this error was deemed harmless since the district court indicated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The court also found the 106-month sentence substantively reasonable, considering the nature of Darrah's offense and his background.The appellate court vacated the judgment regarding the special condition of supervised release, which limited Darrah to one internet-capable device, as it constituted an impermissible delegation of judicial authority to the Probation Office. The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. View "U.S. v. Darrah" on Justia Law

Monika Kapoor, an Indian citizen, faces extradition from the United States to India to face criminal charges. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that Kapoor was extraditable under the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and India. The Secretary of State issued a surrender warrant, rejecting Kapoor’s claims that she would likely be tortured if returned to India, which would violate the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Kapoor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Secretary’s decision, but the district court denied her petition, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) from the REAL ID Act of 2005, which divested the court of jurisdiction to hear her claim. Kapoor appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court, stating that the Convention is not a self-executing treaty and that courts can review claims under it only as authorized by Congress. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s test in I.N.S v. St. Cyr, noting that Section 1252(a)(4) clearly states that claims under the Convention can only be raised in petitions for review of immigration removal orders and specifically bars judicial review of such claims in habeas proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here.The Second Circuit held that this interpretation does not violate the Suspension Clause in the extradition context due to the longstanding rule of non-inquiry, which precludes American habeas courts from considering the anticipated treatment of an extraditee in the receiving country. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying Kapoor’s petition. View "Kapoor v. DeMarco" on Justia Law