Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Victor J. Orena was convicted in 1992 for his involvement in the "Colombo Family War," a violent power struggle within an organized crime family. The jury found him guilty of nine charges, including the use and carrying of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). In 2021, Orena successfully petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his § 924(c)(1) conviction based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis. He sought de novo resentencing on the remaining counts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Orena's request for de novo resentencing. Instead, the court corrected the judgment by excising the § 924(c) conviction and its consecutive sentence but left the sentences for the remaining eight counts unchanged. Orena appealed, arguing that the district court was required to conduct de novo resentencing on all remaining counts, citing the Second Circuit's decision in Kaziu v. United States.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court distinguished Orena's case from Kaziu, noting that the district court had recently evaluated the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in denying Orena's motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court found that the district court had thoroughly assessed the relevant factors and the changed circumstances Orena cited. The court also concluded that the fact that Orena's original sentence predated the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, which made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, did not compel resentencing in this case. Additionally, the court found that Orena's arguments regarding alleged government misconduct were not proper considerations for resentencing.The Second Circuit held that the district court did not exceed its discretion in declining to conduct de novo resentencing and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "U.S. v. Orena" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Chastain was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering based on trades he made while employed at OpenSea, an online NFT marketplace. As head of product, Chastain selected NFTs to feature on the website, which increased their value. He purchased NFTs before they were featured and sold them afterward for a profit, making about $57,000. Chastain argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could find him guilty of defrauding OpenSea of its property if he misappropriated an intangible interest unconnected to traditional property rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Chastain's motion to dismiss the indictment and excluded certain evidence he sought to introduce at trial. The jury found Chastain guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to three months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Chastain that confidential business information must have commercial value to qualify as property under the wire fraud statute. The court found that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could find Chastain guilty even if the information lacked commercial value to OpenSea. The court also found that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could find Chastain guilty if he conducted himself in a manner that departed from traditional notions of fundamental honesty and fair play.The Second Circuit concluded that these errors were not harmless, as the jury could have convicted Chastain based on unethical behavior rather than the misappropriation of a traditional property interest. The court vacated the judgment of conviction for wire fraud and money laundering and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not find any abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Chastain" on Justia Law

Michael Hild, the Defendant-Appellant, was convicted by a jury in 2021 of securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy. Hild, as the CEO of Live Well Financial, Inc., engaged in a scheme to inflate the value of a bond portfolio used as collateral for loans. This scheme allowed Live Well to grow its bond portfolio significantly from 2014 to 2016. Hild appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that a new trial was warranted due to a Supreme Court decision invalidating one of the fraud theories used in his jury instructions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Hild's post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial. Hild then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions.The Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that sufficient evidence supported Hild's conviction. The court noted that Hild misrepresented the value of the bonds to secure loans and acted with fraudulent intent. The court also addressed Hild's argument regarding the jury instructions, acknowledging that the instructions included an invalid right-to-control theory of fraud as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ciminelli v. United States. However, the court concluded that this error did not affect Hild's substantial rights because the jury would have convicted him based on a valid theory of fraud.Ultimately, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding Hild's conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Hild" on Justia Law

Karl Greenwood pled guilty to charges related to a cryptocurrency scam that defrauded investors of over $4.5 billion. Prior to sentencing, Greenwood submitted a partially redacted sentencing memorandum and exhibits, many of which were sealed. Matthew Lee, associated with Inner City Press, filed a motion to unseal and unredact these documents, arguing a right of access.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Lee's motion, stating that the redactions were limited to sensitive information such as medical details and personal information of Greenwood and his family. Lee appealed this decision, contending that the district court did not sufficiently justify the sealing of the exhibits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the First Amendment right of access applies to sentencing memoranda and exhibits, requiring specific findings to justify sealing. The court found that while the district court adequately justified the redactions in the sentencing memorandum, it did not sufficiently explain the complete sealing of the exhibits. The appellate court vacated the district court's order in part and remanded the case for further proceedings to provide a more detailed justification for sealing the exhibits. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the redactions in the sentencing memorandum. View "Lee v. Greenwood" on Justia Law

Natalia Mikhaylovna Bardakova, a Russian citizen, was indicted for conspiring to help Oleg Deripaska, a Russian industrial magnate, evade U.S. sanctions and for making false statements to the FBI. Bardakova allegedly traveled to California to arrange for Deripaska’s partner to give birth there and lied to FBI agents about her ties to Deripaska. She left for Russia three days after being interviewed by the FBI and has not returned to the U.S. despite being indicted four months later.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Bardakova’s motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that she was a fugitive from justice and should be disentitled from relief in federal court. Bardakova argued that she was not a fugitive and that even if she were, she should not have been disentitled.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Bardakova had constructively fled U.S. jurisdiction by allegedly committing a crime in the U.S. before leaving and refusing to return to face prosecution. The court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disentitling her. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Bardakova’s motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applied and that the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying her motion. View "United States v. Bardakova" on Justia Law

Bruce Silva was detained pending his criminal trial on various charges, including firearms, racketeering-conspiracy, and wire-fraud, related to his alleged involvement in the Dub City street gang. The New York City Police Department obtained a search warrant for Silva’s cell phone based on an affidavit by Detective Joseph Boyer, which included information from a confidential informant and Boyer’s expertise in gang-related crimes. The affidavit suggested that Silva’s cell phone might contain evidence of his criminal activities.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Silva’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his cell phone, ruling that the warrant application did not establish probable cause that Silva used his cell phone in connection with his criminal activities. The district court also found that law enforcement did not execute the search in good faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s suppression order. The appellate court held that the district court misapprehended the probable-cause standard. It clarified that a warrant could be issued if there is probable cause to believe that the place to be searched contains evidence of a crime, regardless of whether there is probable cause indicating that the target used the property in furtherance of the criminal conduct. The court also found that the Boyer Affidavit, which included specific factual allegations and Boyer’s expertise, established the requisite nexus between Silva’s alleged crimes and his cell phone. Additionally, the court determined that law enforcement officers executed the search in good-faith reliance on the magistrate judge’s decision to issue the warrant. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Defendants Jibril Adamu and Jean-Claude Okongo Landji were involved in an international narcotics trafficking conspiracy, using a private aircraft to transport cocaine from South America to Africa and Europe. Landji owned an aviation charter business and Adamu was his co-pilot. They were arrested in Croatia in 2018 after flying a test shipment of cocaine. Their cell phones, containing incriminating evidence, were seized. Both defendants were extradited to the United States and charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted both defendants following a jury trial. They were sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. The defendants appealed, arguing that the government lacked jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 959, violated their Sixth Amendment rights by using privileged information, and erred in admitting data extracted from their cell phones.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 959 applies extraterritorially, affirming the government’s jurisdiction. It also found no Sixth Amendment violation, as the district court correctly determined that the government did not use privileged information in its prosecution. The court concluded that the cell phone data was properly authenticated and its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court noted that any potential error in admitting the cell phone data was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the convictions and sentences of both defendants. View "United States v. Adamu" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, American service members and civilians injured or killed in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, along with their family members, sued Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), and Danske Bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). They alleged that the banks aided and abetted terrorist organizations by providing banking services to customers involved in tax fraud and money laundering schemes, with proceeds allegedly funding terrorist activities. Plaintiffs also claimed SCB aided the attacks by providing banking services to fertilizer companies whose products were used to make bombs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient nexus between the banks' actions and the terrorist acts that caused their injuries. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, which clarified the pleading standard for aiding-and-abetting claims under JASTA. The court held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the banks were generally aware of their role in the terrorist activities or that they provided knowing and substantial assistance to the terrorist organizations. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' allegations were too attenuated and speculative to support a claim of aiding-and-abetting liability under JASTA. View "Wildman v. Deutsche Bank" on Justia Law

Pedro Hernandez, a New York State prisoner, was convicted of the 1979 kidnapping and murder of six-year-old Etan Patz. The case hinged on Hernandez's confessions, as there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Hernandez, who has a history of mental illness and low IQ, initially confessed to the crime after seven hours of unwarned questioning by police. After this confession, he was given Miranda warnings and repeated his confession on video. He later confessed again to an Assistant District Attorney.Hernandez's first trial ended in a hung jury. In his second trial, the jury convicted him of felony murder and kidnapping but acquitted him of intentional murder. During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court if they must disregard Hernandez's post-Miranda confessions if they found his initial unwarned confession involuntary. The trial court answered "no," without further explanation. Hernandez appealed, arguing that this instruction violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Missouri v. Seibert, which addresses the admissibility of confessions obtained through a two-step interrogation process.The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court's instruction was correct and that any error was harmless. Hernandez's petition for habeas relief was denied by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found the trial court's instruction erroneous but concluded that the error was harmless under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court's instruction was contrary to clearly established federal law under Seibert and that the error was not harmless. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for the conditional granting of the writ, ordering Hernandez's release unless the state affords him a new trial within a reasonable period. View "Hernandez v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in 2017. The charges stemmed from a 2011 transaction where HSBC, under Johnson's leadership, converted U.S. dollars into British pounds for Cairn Energy. The government presented two theories of fraud to the jury: the now-invalid right-to-control theory and the misappropriation theory. Johnson filed a Petition for a writ of coram nobis after the Supreme Court's decision in Ciminelli v. United States invalidated the right-to-control theory.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Johnson's Petition, concluding that the jury would have convicted him under the valid misappropriation theory, rendering the inclusion of the invalid right-to-control theory harmless. Johnson appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the government's case under the misappropriation theory was weak and expressed grave doubt that the presentation of the right-to-control theory was harmless. The court noted that the misappropriation theory required proving a fiduciary relationship between Johnson and Cairn, which was not clearly established, and that Johnson misused confidential information, which was also not convincingly demonstrated.The Second Circuit held that the inclusion of the invalid right-to-control theory was not harmless and that the jury was likely influenced by it. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Johnson's Petition for a writ of coram nobis. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law