Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Cobbs pleaded guilty in 2017 to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, using or brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The attempted Hobbs Act robbery served as the predicate crime of violence for the firearm charge. Cobbs later sought to vacate his 25-year sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his § 924(c) conviction was invalid based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Cobbs’s petition, finding that he had procedurally defaulted his claim by not raising it on direct appeal and that he failed to show cause or actual innocence to excuse the default. The district court also noted that Cobbs admitted to facts supporting a conviction for a completed Hobbs Act robbery, which would still qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Cobbs could not demonstrate actual innocence because he admitted to facts that constituted a completed Hobbs Act robbery, which remains a valid predicate for a § 924(c) conviction. The court concluded that the change in law announced in Taylor did not affect Cobbs’s conviction since his factual admissions supported a completed robbery charge. Therefore, Cobbs’s procedural default was not excused, and his petition to vacate his sentence was properly denied. View "Cobbs v USA" on Justia Law

Evelio Santana pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after the district judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Santana had three prior convictions for violent felonies committed on different occasions. Santana appealed, arguing that the determination should have been made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by a recent Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v. United States.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially handled Santana's case. The district judge determined that Santana's prior convictions were committed on different occasions and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of fifteen years in prison under the ACCA. Santana's lawyer had agreed with the judge's authority to make this determination based on then-current Seventh Circuit precedent. The government objected, arguing that a jury should make the determination, but the judge overruled the objection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that an error occurred because the judge, not a jury, made the different-occasions determination by a preponderance of the evidence, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Erlinger. The error was plain and affected Santana's substantial rights by increasing his sentence. The court concluded that the error undermined the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, as a reasonable jury might have found reasonable doubt about whether the prior felonies were committed on different occasions. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated Santana's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger. View "United States v Santana" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tangtang Zhao, a pharmacist at Walgreens, took blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from his workplace and sold them on eBay for personal profit. Zhao was charged with and convicted on twelve counts of theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. He appealed, arguing that the government did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the vaccination cards were government property when he took them. He also challenged the trial judge’s response to the jury’s question about the definition of government property and parts of the jury instructions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Zhao’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. Zhao was sentenced to one year of probation and fined $5,600. He renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the government presented sufficient evidence that it maintained supervision and control over the vaccination cards, which retained their federal character. The court found that the government’s restrictions on the use and distribution of the cards, its right to inspect and access the cards, and its ability to terminate Walgreens’ participation in the vaccination program were sufficient to prove that the cards were government property.The appellate court also held that the district court did not err in its response to the jury’s question or in its jury instructions. The court concluded that the instructions were correct statements of the law and that the district court acted within its discretion. The appellate court affirmed Zhao’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v Zhao" on Justia Law

Jesus Zambrano was convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois state court in 2013. The Illinois Appellate Court later found that the trial court erred by not giving a jury instruction on accomplice liability, leading to a retrial where Zambrano was acquitted. Zambrano then filed a federal lawsuit against Detective Patrick Schumacher and sought indemnification from the City of Joliet, alleging that Schumacher fabricated evidence, violating his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.The case involved the murder of Robert Gooch, who was shot at his girlfriend's apartment in May 2009. Key evidence included testimonies and surveillance videos placing Zambrano at the scene. Detective Schumacher's police report stated that Zambrano identified his friends and the location of his girlfriend's apartment, which Zambrano claimed was false.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Zambrano failed to provide sufficient evidence that Schumacher deliberately falsified evidence in bad faith or that the alleged fabrication was material to his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Zambrano did not present enough evidence to show that Schumacher knowingly falsified the police report or acted in bad faith. Additionally, the court found that the alleged fabricated evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial, as it did not affect the jury's judgment. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld. View "Zambrano v City of Joliet" on Justia Law

The defendant, Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De Leon had been removed from the U.S. five times previously, with his first removal in 2002 following a conviction for the sale and delivery of methamphetamine. Subsequent removals occurred in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2022, each following separate convictions for illegal reentry. Despite escalating sentences for each conviction, De Leon reentered the U.S. again and was arrested in January 2023. He was indicted for illegal reentry and pleaded guilty after the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin calculated a sentencing Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months but imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 48 months. The court justified the sentence by emphasizing De Leon's repeated illegal reentries and the failure of previous escalating punishments to deter him. The court also noted De Leon's struggle with alcohol, which contributed to his criminal behavior, although this was not the main reason for the above-Guidelines sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence, finding that the justifications provided were consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court noted that De Leon's repeated offenses and the ineffectiveness of prior sentences warranted the above-Guidelines sentence. Additionally, the appellate court rejected De Leon's argument that the district court improperly relied on his alcohol dependence and found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of De Leon's motion to dismiss the indictment, citing recent precedent. View "United States v De Leon De Paz" on Justia Law

Gary Matthews and Monte Brannan collaborated on a project to redevelop a landmark hotel in Peoria, Illinois. Instead of fulfilling their financial obligations to lenders, they diverted project revenue for personal gain. This led to federal charges of mail fraud and money laundering, resulting in guilty verdicts by a jury.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois oversaw the initial trial. Matthews and Brannan were convicted of mail fraud, money laundering, and, in Brannan’s case, conspiracy to commit money laundering. They appealed their convictions, raising multiple issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found the evidence against Matthews and Brannan overwhelming, affirming their convictions. The court noted that Matthews and Brannan failed to comply with Circuit Rule 30(b)(1) by not including necessary district court rulings in their appendices, which hindered the appellate review process. Despite this, the court ensured a fair review by independently locating the relevant rulings. The court ordered Matthews’s and Brannan’s counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their violations of Circuit Rule 30. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, ensuring that Matthews and Brannan received fair consideration of their appeals. View "USA v Brannan" on Justia Law

Curtis Walker, who was 17 years old when he committed murder, was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date set for 2071, effectively making it a life-without-parole sentence. After serving nearly 30 years, Walker sought postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment based on a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. Walker's request for a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate his rehabilitation was denied by the Wisconsin state courts, prompting him to file a federal habeas corpus petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Walker's postconviction motion, holding that his sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the sentencing judge had considered his youth and its attendant circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. Walker then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely and without merit, concluding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent, particularly in light of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Jones v. Mississippi. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the Supreme Court's precedents did not clearly establish a categorical prohibition against sentencing corrigible juvenile offenders to life without parole. View "Walker v Cromwell" on Justia Law

Michael Williams was convicted by a Wisconsin jury of reckless homicide and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appealed his convictions to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, arguing that a jury instruction unconstitutionally lowered the government's burden of proof and that the prosecutor's closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review.Williams then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court held that the state appellate court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in concluding that it was not reasonably likely the jury applied the instruction in an unconstitutional manner. The court also held that Williams had not demonstrated that the prosecutor's remarks violated clearly established Supreme Court precedent.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Williams raised the same two arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent regarding the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not shift the burden of proof to the defense in a manner that violated due process, especially considering the trial court's curative instructions. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Williams had not shown that the state court's rulings were so lacking in justification as to constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Williams v Meisner" on Justia Law

Fourteen plaintiffs, including pilots, a physician, a nurse, and an attorney, were required to undergo alcohol testing to maintain their employment and professional licenses. The tests, developed by United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. (USDTL), indicated positive results for alcohol consumption, leading to significant professional harm. The plaintiffs alleged that the tests were unreliable and sued USDTL and its officers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state law. They also sued Choice Labs Services (CLS) and its owners, who provided the tests to the administrators.The plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Southern District of Florida, asserting claims for fraud and negligence. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the complaint insufficient. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint, adding CLS as defendants. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, where the district court dismissed the RICO claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish proximate causation for their RICO claims, as they did not adequately allege a direct link between USDTL's alleged misrepresentations and their professional injuries. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud under Rule 9(b). Consequently, the RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. View "Ratfield v United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants Falandis Russell and Terrance Williams committed a series of armed commercial robberies in Chicago over nearly a year and a half. They were indicted for conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery, with Russell facing eleven additional counts and Williams six counts of obstruction of commerce by robbery. Russell's counsel requested a forensic psychologist to assess his cognitive capacity, leading to a diagnosis of intellectual disability and ADHD. A competency examination was conducted, and Dr. Jajko found Russell unfit for trial. However, further evaluations by Dr. Muhkin and Dr. Dinwiddie concluded that Russell was competent, suggesting he was malingering.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held a competency hearing and found Russell competent to stand trial. Both defendants pleaded guilty, with Russell reserving the right to challenge the competency determination. Russell was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release, while Williams received 114 months of imprisonment. Williams objected to a supervised release condition requiring him to notify another person if his probation officer determined he posed a risk, but the court imposed it with amendments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's competency determination for Russell, finding no clear error in the reliance on the evaluations by Drs. Muhkin and Dinwiddie. The court also found no procedural error in Russell's sentencing, noting that the district court adequately considered his cognitive impairments. However, the court vacated the supervised release condition imposed on Williams, agreeing that certain terms were vague, and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the necessity and scope of the condition. View "USA v Williams" on Justia Law