Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and marijuana, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The court explained that, in the plea hearing, the impression was given that there was a range of sentencing options: the judge spoke of "the potential sentences"; the prosecutor gave an account of multiple maximum and minimum sentences, discussed supervised release, and warned of the forfeiture of rights (including the right to hold public office); and the court and prosecutor discussed Sentencing Guidelines ranges and judicial discretion to weigh the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the sentencing transcript suggested that defendant's counsel may not have understood the inexorable nature of the sentence either, and defendant's assertion that he would have gone to trial if he knew that a life sentence was foreordained was rendered plausible by the arresting fact that he derived absolutely no benefit or advantage from the plea. Accordingly, the court vacated the plea, directed that the case be reassigned, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendants Monsalvatge, Byam, and Dunkley appealed their convictions stemming from their armed robberies of two Pay‐O‐Matic check‐cashing stores. A summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion addressed the balance of defendants' claims on appeal. At issue here was Monsalvatge's claims, which Dunkley joined, regarding whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence at trial four clips from the 2010 film, The Town. The Government argued that defendants altered their modus operandi to carry out the second robbery in a manner resembling robberies depicted in the movie. The court concluded that the district court's ruling to admit the clips was not arbitrary and irrational; the clips were relevant to the issues and defendants in the case and, importantly, they were short and narrowly tailored; and the district court provided not one but two curative instructions to minimize any potential for prejudice from the few differences between the clips and the 2012 robbery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgments of conviction as to Monsalvatge and Byam; affirmed Counts One, Four, and Five as to Dunkley; and reversed Counts Two and Three as to Dunkley. The court remanded for resentencing as to Dunkley. View "United States v. Monsalvatge" on Justia Law

Defendants Dey and Finazzo were involved in a conspiracy to use South Bay as a supplier of Aeropostale apparel in exchange for secret payments. Finazzo was a former merchandising executive for Aeropostale, and Dey controlled South Bay, a clothing vendor. Dey plead guilty to conspiracy, and a jury convicted Finazzo of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371, fourteen counts of mail fraud, and one count of wire fraud. The court affirmed the district court's jury instructions regarding the "right to control" property under the mail and wire fraud statutes; concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the challenged portions of the jury verdict; but, vacated and remanded the district court's restitution order as to Finazzo and Dey. In a simultaneously issued summary order, the court affirmed the remaining issues on appeal. View "United States v. Finazzo" on Justia Law

Defendants Natal and Morales appealed their sentences and convictions for crimes including arson resulting in death, accessory after the fact to arson, and destruction and concealment of evidence. The court held that testimony on how cell phone towers operate constitutes expert testimony and may not be introduced through a lay witness; the admission in the instant case of lay opinion testimony on the operation of cell phone towers was harmless; the court held that Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence must be vacated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Yates v. United States, handed down shortly after Morales filed the instant appeal; the court remanded Morales's case to the district court to vacate Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence, and, pursuant to United States v. Powers, to conduct de novo resentencing of Morales; and, as part of the district court's calculation of Morales's Guidelines range at the resentencing, Morales's three counts of conviction for accessory after the fact should be grouped pursuant to USSG 3D1.2. The court rejected defendants' other claims. Accordingly, the court upheld all counts of conviction except Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Natal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 20 state pretrial detainees, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City and the supervisory officers of a pre-arraignment holding facility were deliberately indifferent to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the holding facility. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider; and denied a subsequent motion to reconsider the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The court affirmed the district court's judgment as to claims plaintiffs concede were properly dismissed. However, the court concluded that the district court misapplied this court's precedents in assessing whether plaintiffs had established an objectively serious deprivation. In Willey v. Kirkpatrick, the court recently reiterated that the proper lens through which to analyze allegedly unconstitutional unsanitary conditions of confinement is with reference to their severity and duration, not the detainee's resulting injury. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson dictates that deliberate indifference be measured objectively in due process cases. In this case, the district court did not analyze the implications of Kingsley in its opinion. Therefore, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Darnell v. City of New York" on Justia Law

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