Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After the district court granted habeas relief to petitioner based on his Batson v. Kentucky challenge, respondent appealed. The district court held that the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, had unreasonably applied Batson and its progeny when it affirmed the state trial court's finding that petitioner failed to make a prima facie case showing that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. The court held that the district court incorrectly applied the standard for evaluating a state court's rulings set forth in the Anti‐Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d); the Appellate Division's order affirming the trial court's denial of petitioner's Batson challenge was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and thus the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carmichael v. Chappius" on Justia Law

Defendants Barret, Mitchell, and Scarlett were convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. The court joined its sister circuits in finding that the testimony of a former co‐defendant who pleads guilty during trial and then agrees to testify as a government witness at that same trial is admissible so long as the district court takes steps to avoid undue prejudice to the remaining defendants. The court explained that these steps include limiting testimony to events other than the witness's involvement in joint defense planning and properly instructing the jury regarding the changed circumstances. In this case, the court held that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Mitchell knowingly joined a conspiracy to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, and that such an amount was reasonably foreseeable to him. Defendants' remaining arguments are addressed in a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Barret" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, the district court sentenced him to 210 months in prison. Defendant moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), arguing that Amendments 782 and 788 of the Sentencing Guidelines lowered his applicable Guidelines range. The district court denied the motion because a 2011 Amendment to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b) prohibited a sentence reduction where the defendant’s initial sentence was below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. The court affirmed the judgment and held that Amendment 759’s application prohibiting defendant from taking advantage of Amendment 782 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs' convictions for rape and murder were vacated and they had served eighteen years in prison, plaintiff filed suit alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution and denial of fair trial claims. Defendant, as executrix of the Estate of Joseph Volpe, appealed the district court's judgment for plaintiffs. Volpe was a homicide detective that investigated the rape and murder case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a new trial was warranted; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; the court rejected defendant's argument that a conflict of interest deprived Volpe of a fair trial; the district court correctly denied Volpe's request for a setoff; the court denied Volpe's motion for remittitur and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the jury award did not shock the conscience or materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation; and the court affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees. Because the court found no basis for reversal, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Restivo v. Hessemann" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The state trial court, during the trial testimony of the undercover officers involved in petitioner's arrest, closed the courtroom to the general public to protect the safety of the officers. Petitioner alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court concluded that the New York Court of Appeals correctly held that a reviewing court may infer from the record that a trial court fulfilled its obligation to consider alternatives to closure, and that the New York Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the government had established an overriding interest justifying closure. Because the New York Court of Appeals' decision was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Moss v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy count. Prior to the guilty plea, the government filed a prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. 851, alleging that defendant was previously convicted of a drug felony under the New York State Penal Law. Defendant admitted to the fact of a prior conviction and the district court sentenced him principally to the mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the United States Attorney need not personally sign a prior felony information and that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) may do so. In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice by the fact that an AUSA rather than a United States Attorney signed his information. The court also rejected defendant's argument that the government unconstitutionally contravened an internal Department of Justice policy memorandum, which lists factors relevant to the government’s decision to seek a prior felony enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Strong, Jr." on Justia Law

In 2008, Leonard pled guilty to conspiracies to distribute 100 or more kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; and to launder the proceeds of that illegal trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). While serving a 114‐month prison term, Leonard unsuccessfully sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reasoned that an amended, retroactive, 97‐121‐month Sentencing Guidelines range was not lower than the 97-121‐month range agreed to in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded. Leonard is eligible for a section 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction because his original sentence was “based on” the Sentencing Guidelines as that statutory phrase was construed by the Supreme Court in 2011, but the extent of the reduction for which Leonard is eligible is narrower than he urges because his “applicable” Guidelines range, as defined by U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 was the 121‐151‐month range calculated by the district court before accepting what was effectively a downward variance to the 97‐121‐month range prescribed in the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. Leonard is eligible for a reduction of his sentence, but to no less than 97 months’ incarceration. View "United States v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction after pleading guilty to thirteen counts of child‐pornography‐related offenses. Defendant challenged the actual basis supporting his plea as to one of the thirteen counts and the reasonableness of his 480‐month sentence. The Government concedes that the district court committed “plain error” by accepting defendant's plea to the count challenged on appeal and that defendant's conviction as to that count must be vacated, but argues that resentencing is unnecessary. The court concluded, however, that the the error was a so‐called “conviction error,” and thus de novo resentencing is required. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to vacate the erroneous count of conviction and for de novo resentencing. View "United States v. Powers" on Justia Law

Petitioner, pro se, moves for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition challenging his 2009 New York conviction for burglary and sexual abuse. Petitioner filed multiple section 2254 petitions in the past challenging his conviction, but each petition was dismissed as incomprehensible. The court held that an order denying a section 2254 petition as incomprehensible is “on the merits” for the purposes of the successive‐petition requirements if the petitioner was on notice that the district court considered the section 2254 petition to be incomprehensible, and had an opportunity to cure the defect. In this case, because petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive section 2254 petition is as incomprehensible as the others, he has not made a “prima facie showing” that his application satisfies the section 2244(b)(2) requirements. Accordingly, the court denied the motion. View "Garcia v. Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to challenge his 2007 sentence for Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951. Petitioner, in his plea agreement, agreed “not to file an appeal or otherwise challenge the conviction or sentence in the event that the Court impose[d] a term of imprisonment of 210 months or below.” The district court accepted the plea and sentenced him to 151 months in prison. The court concluded that petitioner's collateral attack waiver bars his motion because the waiver encompasses any challenge to his sentence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion for leave to file a successive section 2255 motion. View "Sanford v. United States" on Justia Law