Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Nicholas Karagianis was indicted on federal drug and firearm charges and later entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to all counts. The plea agreement stipulated a final offense level of 31 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. However, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a final offense level of 33 due to an additional two-level firearm enhancement. The district court adopted the PSR’s recommendation and imposed a below-guideline sentence. Karagianis subsequently sent a letter to the court, claiming he was misled by his counsel about how his sentence would be calculated.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana conducted a combined change-of-plea and sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the court confirmed that Karagianis understood the plea agreement and its terms, including that the court was not bound by the stipulations in the agreement. The court adopted the PSR’s recommendation of a final offense level of 33 and imposed a sentence of 168 months for Counts 1 and 2, and 120 months for Count 3, to be served concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Karagianis raised three arguments on appeal: that he entered his guilty plea unknowingly due to the district court’s failure to inform him about the waiver of his right to appeal an adverse ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, that the court did not explain the impact of the PSR on sentencing, and that the government breached the plea agreement by not objecting to the PSR’s recommended offense level. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding no plain error in the district court’s actions and concluding that any potential breach by the government did not affect Karagianis’s substantial rights or the fairness of the judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Karagianis" on Justia Law

Pierre Robinson and Derrick Swanson, members of the Evans Mob gang in Chicago, were charged with murdering rival gang members to enhance their status within the gang. Swanson entered a cooperation agreement and pleaded guilty, while Robinson went to trial. At Robinson's trial, his cousin Anise, who had previously identified him as the shooter in a recorded statement and grand jury testimony, claimed memory loss and could not identify him in court. The district court admitted her prior statements as evidence. Robinson was convicted by a jury after a four-day trial.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Robinson was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to life in prison. Swanson, who cooperated with the government, received a 30-year sentence and five years of supervised release. Swanson's sentence included a condition allowing probation officers to search his workplace, which he contested as inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Robinson argued that the admission of Anise's statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The court held that Robinson had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Anise, thus satisfying the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Robinson's counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Swanson's challenge to his supervised release condition was rejected, as the written judgment did not contradict the oral pronouncement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Michael Lairy petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he did not qualify for the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) mandatory 15-year sentence and that his counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue. The government did not address the merits of Lairy’s claims but argued that they were raised after the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied his petition, rejecting Lairy’s arguments that the government forfeited the statute of limitations defense, that he was actually innocent of ACCA, and that he was entitled to equitable tolling.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held that Lairy’s petition was untimely and that the government did not forfeit the statute of limitations defense. The court also found that Lairy’s claim of actual innocence did not apply because it was a legal, not factual, argument. Additionally, the court denied Lairy’s request for equitable tolling without conducting an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court’s evaluation of forfeiture and actual innocence. However, the appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting equitable tolling without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of the petition and remanded the case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Lairy v. United States" on Justia Law

Brian Fenner and Dennis Birkley were convicted of seventeen counts related to a fraud scheme involving the manipulation of Indiana’s mechanic’s lien statute. Fenner, who ran a towing company, and Birkley, who financed the operation, conspired to inflate the value of mechanic’s liens on vehicles and conducted sham auctions to obtain clean titles, which they then sold for profit. The scheme involved towing vehicles from across the country to Indiana, inflating lien values, and holding fake auctions at unreasonable hours to ensure no legitimate buyers attended. Birkley would then falsely claim to have purchased the vehicles at these auctions and apply for clean titles, which extinguished the creditors' interests.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana convicted both defendants on all counts. Fenner and Birkley were sentenced to 70 and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to pay $49,045.84 in restitution. Fenner and Birkley appealed, arguing that the district court made several errors, including allowing improper testimony and violating Fenner’s Sixth Amendment rights by admitting Birkley’s unredacted statement to law enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. The court held that the testimony of the government witnesses was proper and that any potential errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found no plain error in the admission of Birkley’s statement, as it was consistent with Fenner’s defense and did not significantly impact the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court rejected Birkley’s ex post facto argument and upheld the restitution calculation, finding it supported by the evidence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of Fenner and Birkley. View "United States v. Birkley" on Justia Law

Dana Curtin was convicted by a jury of attempted sex trafficking of a minor after engaging in a series of text communications with an undercover federal agent posing as the father of a 12-year-old girl. Over ten weeks, Curtin discussed paying for sex with the purported minor, repeatedly acknowledged her age, and arranged to meet at a public location. When Curtin arrived at the meeting spot with cash and items consistent with the planned encounter, law enforcement arrested him. A search of his vehicle and phone revealed evidence of adult pornography and solicitation of prostitutes, but no child sexual abuse material.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois presided over Curtin’s trial. Before trial, Curtin sought to introduce expert testimony from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Fabien Saleh, to show that Curtin did not have pedophilic disorder and that an interest in adult sex or pornography does not imply an interest in minors. The district court excluded Dr. Saleh’s testimony, finding it would not be helpful to the jury, and allowed Curtin to make related arguments without expert support. The jury found Curtin guilty, and the court sentenced him to 180 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Curtin’s challenges to the exclusion of Dr. Saleh’s testimony. The court held that Curtin had waived his challenge regarding testimony about his lack of pedophilic tendencies by expressly agreeing with the district court’s ruling. As to the remaining expert testimony, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in its exclusion, concluding that the proposed testimony was within the common understanding of jurors and that any error was harmless given the strength of the government’s evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Curtin’s conviction. View "United States v. Curtin" on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a drug trafficking conspiracy in Fort Wayne, Indiana, using a confidential source to conduct controlled buys from Zachary Barnes. Barnes coordinated the sales, supplied methamphetamine, and directed his co-conspirator, Marquese Neal, to make deliveries. Neal testified that Barnes paid him in marijuana for his services. Barnes was arrested, and law enforcement found drugs and ammunition in his home.Barnes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess it with intent to distribute. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana applied a two-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for Barnes' role as a manager or supervisor. This enhancement made Barnes ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Barnes objected to the role enhancement and the denial of safety-valve relief, but the district court overruled his objections, finding Neal's testimony credible and supported by other evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's application of the role enhancement, agreeing that Barnes' actions—recruiting Neal, coordinating logistics, supplying drugs, and directing deliveries—fit the criteria for a manager or supervisor under section 3B1.1(c). The court also upheld the denial of safety-valve relief, as Barnes' supervisory role made him ineligible. The Seventh Circuit found no clear error in the district court's credibility determinations or factual findings and affirmed Barnes' ten-year sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

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