Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In February 2018, two men invaded a home in Rockford, Illinois, resulting in the death of Julian Young, Jr. and the escape of Jasmine Meneweather. Meneweather initially provided general descriptions of the assailants but no specific identities. Later, she sent a photo of one perpetrator to Detective Eric Harris, but the person was not identified. Over a year later, Harris received another photo from Young’s aunt, identifying the assailants as brothers Cortez and Shawnqiz Lee. Meneweather later identified Shawnqiz Lee in a photo array. Despite Lee’s alibi of being at work during the crime, he was arrested in November 2019 based on a criminal complaint and a judge-issued arrest warrant. A grand jury indicted Lee, but subsequent DNA evidence did not match him. Lee was released in December 2020 after the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the police officers, reasoning that probable cause existed based on Meneweather’s identification, which is an absolute defense to Lee’s claims. Lee appealed, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause and that they recklessly withheld material facts.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 probable cause existed based on Meneweather’s identification, which was sufficient to support the arrest warrant. The court also found that the officers did not recklessly withhold material facts that would have negated probable cause. Additionally, the grand jury indictment provided prima facie evidence of probable cause, which Lee failed to rebut. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the police officers, concluding that probable cause was an absolute defense to Lee’s Fourth Amendment and state-law claims. View "Lee v Harris" on Justia Law

Lorenzo Johnson ran an online child-pornography scheme, inducing financially desperate women to send him sexually explicit photos of their young children by promising them money. Law enforcement identified Johnson's IP address, social media accounts, and cellphone, leading to a search of his home where they found his phone containing evidence of the crimes and a handgun. Johnson confessed to key details of his scheme in two recorded interviews with FBI agents. A jury found him guilty of conspiracy to produce child pornography, distribution of child pornography, and unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, handled the initial trial. Johnson's requests for new counsel were denied by both the magistrate judge and the district judge. The district judge also denied Johnson's motion for a new trial based on a late disclosure of potential Brady/Giglio evidence, which involved a romantic relationship between two FBI agents. Additionally, Johnson argued that the judge made an improper factual finding at sentencing regarding his causal role in the suicide of one of the women involved in his scheme.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that the magistrate and district judges appropriately exercised their discretion in denying Johnson’s requests for new counsel. The district judge properly denied Johnson’s motion for a new trial because it was undeveloped and the new information was deemed immaterial. Lastly, the court found that the judge’s comments at sentencing about the co-conspirator’s suicide were part of a holistic assessment of the seriousness of the crimes and did not amount to a factual finding that Johnson was causally responsible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings and Johnson's conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

An officer stopped a car for expired license plates. Barry, the driver, did not have registration papers, and professed not to know who owned the car or where he was going. Fadiga, the passenger, replied that “a friend” owned the car and produced a rental agreement. The car’s return was past due; the agreement did not authorize either man to drive the car. When Fadiga opened his wallet to extract his driver’s license, the officer saw multiple plastic cards and sought permission to search the car; both consented. The officer found a bag full of gift cards and requested a card reader. About 30 minutes later the reader arrived and detected that the cards had been tampered with. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Fadiga’s conviction for possession of unauthorized “access devices,” 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3), upholding denial of a motion to suppress. The delay between the call and the reader’s arrival was justified by reasonable suspicion that the men possessed doctored gift cards. The court noted that neither man was authorized to drive the car; even without waiting for a reader, the police were entitled to detain them. The court also rejected a discrimination claim. The venire from which the jury was selected comprised 48 persons, none of them black. Defense counsel did not show discrimination in the venire's selection under 28 U.S.C. 1861. View "United States v. Fadiga" on Justia Law

Paulette helped found an East St. Louis, Illinois street gang during the late 1980s. By 2012 he and the gang were trafficking large amounts of drugs. Paulette led the gang and managed its drug trade, even controlling the sale of illegal drugs in nearby Washington Park, with many people working for him. Paulette sold 105 grams of cocaine to an informant during two controlled buys in 2014. Two months later, authorities were waiting when Paulette and eight travel companions got off a train in St. Louis, returning from a supply run to Texas. Seven of them were carrying a total of 2.4 kilograms of cocaine in packages concealed under their clothing. Paulette eventually pled guilty to eight counts related to drug trafficking and was sentenced to a total of 300 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, rejecting Paulette’s arguments about the scope of the conspiracy and that the district court, in calculating his imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines, wrongly counted certain years of drug dealing as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3. Paulette admitted, through his plea agreement, that the conspiracy had “involved” at least five kilograms of cocaine and at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. View "United States v. Paulette" on Justia Law

In 1984, Ben-Yisrayl was convicted in Indiana state court of capital murder, rape, criminal confinement, and burglary. The case bounced back and forth for many years in the state courts as the death sentence and other issues were litigated on direct review and in postconviction proceedings, eventually resulting in a 60-year sentence on the murder conviction. In the meantime, Ben-Yisrayl pursued habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Because he had not completed state post-conviction review, the district judge stayed the proceedings. When the state courts finally finished with the case, the judge lifted the stay and ordered the state to respond to the petition. Indiana did so. Ben-Yisrayl failed to file his reply within the allotted time, so the case proceeded to decision without a reply brief from him. The judge denied relief on all grounds without an evidentiary hearing and denied Ben-Yisrayl’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Ben-Yisrael had waived his only argument on appeal: that his resentencing counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to introduce “a veritable mountain of mitigation evidence.” View "Ben-Yisrayl v. Neal" on Justia Law

Radford boarded a train in Flagstaff, to deliver heroin to Toledo. The train stopped in Galesburg. Officer Mings, who goes to the station daily to study passengers, noted indicators of drug trafficking. Radford had purchased a one-way ticket two days earlier, paying a premium for a roomette, and was traveling between locations associated with illegal drugs. Radford had been arrested seven years earlier for assisting undocumented aliens and for possessing marijuana. Mings, in uniform, knocked on Radford’s door and stated that he was doing “security checks” for ”illegal narcotics.” Radford answered Ming’s questions. He asked to search her luggage. Radford responded, “I guess so. You’re just doing your job.” He never advised Radford that she could refuse his requests. The search revealed heroin. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of her motion to suppress, finding that the encounter was consensual, not a seizure, and that Radford voluntarily consented to the search. Even with no basis for suspecting a particular individual, officers may pose questions, request identification, and request consent to search—"provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means.” No seizure occurs if “a reasonable person would feel free to … terminate the encounter.” Rejecting claims of intimidation, the court noted Mings did not enter Radford’s roomette before her consent, told her why he wanted to search, and did not threaten Radford; there cannot be a rule that an "officer is forbidden to speak to a person of another race.” View "United States v. Radford" on Justia Law

Wheeler pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a)), and to discharging a gun during that crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). The plea did not reserve any issue for appeal. The court sentenced him to 108 months for the Hobbs Act offense and the required consecutive 120 months for the firearms offense. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Wheeler’s argument that attempted robbery is not a “crime of violence” because an attempt to rob a retail establishment does not have the use of physical force as an element and the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery satisfies the elements clause in section 924(c) is a statutory issue; an unconditional guilty plea waives any contention that an indictment fails to state an offense. The court also rejected Wheeler’s argument that he should be resentenced in light of a 2017 Supreme Court holding that 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which requires a sentence under section 924(c) to run consecutively to the sentence for the offense in which the firearm was used, does not forbid the court to choose a term of imprisonment for the predicate offense so that the aggregate imprisonment comports with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing criteria. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

On remand, court was entitled to rely upon the record established at the original sentencing concerning the Guidelines range.Armand pleaded guilty to distributing crack and powder cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Applying Amendment 782 decreased the total offense level, for a Guidelines range of 84-105 months. At his hearing, Armand repeatedly acknowledged that Guidelines range, but contended that the court should depart downward to impose a sentence that would apply if the crack and powder cocaine Guidelines reflected a one-to-one ratio; the court declined and imposed a sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. On remand for resentencing, Armand did not dispute that range, but reiterated his argument regarding the sentencing disparity and his mitigation arguments. The court discussed the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and sentenced Armand to 104 months’ imprisonment, recognizing efforts Armand undertook to improve his life while imprisoned. The court expressed skepticism that mental health treatment and his age would lower his risk of recidivism. The court also stated that its position on the crack cocaine Guidelines had not changed since the original sentencing hearing, and declined to decrease the ratio. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court was entitled to rely upon the record established at the original sentencing. View "United States v. Armand" on Justia Law

Seventh Circuit finds that 10 years of prison segregation raised serious constitutional concerns. In 1989, Isby was incarcerated for robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Months later, Isby hit a prison counselor. Officers gassed Isby and entered his cell. During the altercation, a dog was killed, and Isby stabbed two officers. Isby was convicted of attempted murder and battery, and sentenced to an additional 40 years. Isby was moved among Indiana prisons and received several major‐conduct reports. Since October 2006, Isby has been in long‐term segregation. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. Unaware that Isby had accumulated three “strikes” for filing frivolous suits or appeals and was restricted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act from seeking pauper status, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), the court granted Isby’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but rejected his claims, and allowed him to appeal as a pauper. The Seventh Circuit declined to dismiss the appeal, affirmed with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim, and remanded for further proceedings on Isby’s due process claim. The court noted serious constitutional concerns: the “repeated issuance of the same uninformative language (without any updates or explanation of why continued placement is necessary) and the length of Isby’s confinement, could cause a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Isby has been deprived” of liberty without due process. View "Isby v. Brown" on Justia Law

Challenge to sentencing as an armed career criminal, based on Supreme Court’s holding in “Johnson,” is precluded by waiver in plea agreement. Carson robbed a convenience store by pulling a gun on the cashier. After he was apprehended, he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, section 924(c), and possessing a firearm as a felon, section 922(g)(1). He waived his right to appeal, with limited exceptions; the prosecution agreed to recommend a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a prison sentence of 272 months, at the low end of the range calculated by the parties based on a shared assumption that Carson would be sentenced as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) The district court sentenced Carson to 272 months as an armed career criminal, classifying as violent felonies prior convictions for robbery and armed robbery. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Carson’s appeal, in which he argued that under Johnson v. United States (2010), none of his prior convictions was a violent felony. The appeal waiver in Carson’s plea agreement precluded that argument. View "United States v. Carson" on Justia Law