Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Three federal prisoners, Jason Bricker, Ellis McHenry, and Lois Orta, sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing a new policy statement by the Sentencing Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). This policy allows for sentence reductions based on nonretroactive changes in the law if certain conditions are met, including serving at least 10 years of an "unusually long sentence" and a "gross disparity" between the actual and hypothetical sentences under current law.In the Northern District of Ohio, the district court granted Bricker's motion for compassionate release, finding that his sentence would be significantly shorter under current law. The court acknowledged a Sixth Circuit precedent, United States v. McCall, which held that nonretroactive changes in the law are not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction, but asserted that the Sentencing Commission had overruled this precedent. The government appealed this decision.In McHenry's case, the district court denied his motion for compassionate release, stating that applying the new policy would require disregarding the statutory mandatory minimum and the binding precedent set by McCall. Similarly, in Orta's case, the district court denied the motion, relying on McCall to conclude that nonretroactive changes in sentencing law do not constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release. Both McHenry and Orta appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals and held that the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). The court concluded that the policy statement was invalid as it conflicted with the statute and the separation of powers. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Bricker's case and affirmed the denials in McHenry's and Orta's cases, denying compassionate release for all three prisoners. View "United States v. Bricker" on Justia Law

During a late-night traffic stop, officers found two firearms in Andre Whitlow’s car. As Whitlow was a felon, it was illegal for him to possess the guns. At trial, a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession. Whitlow appealed, challenging various aspects of the traffic stop and his conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Whitlow’s motion to suppress the firearms found during the search. The court found that Officer Kazimer had probable cause to search the car based on the marijuana observed in the vehicle. After a two-day trial, the jury found Whitlow guilty, and the court sentenced him to 120 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Whitlow argued that Officer Kazimer lacked probable cause to search his car, the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the district court erroneously admitted various pieces of evidence, allowed improper testimony, and that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Officer Kazimer had probable cause to search the car based on the marijuana observed, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also found that the district court did not err in admitting the Instagram photographs and prior police interaction as evidence, nor in allowing the officer to identify himself as being from the Homicide Unit. Finally, the court upheld the procedural reasonableness of Whitlow’s sentence, including the two-level enhancement for possessing a stolen firearm. View "United States v. Whitlow" on Justia Law

Jay Sadrinia, a dentist, was convicted by a jury for knowingly prescribing a controlled substance without a legitimate medical purpose, resulting in the death of his patient, Cheyenne Witt. Witt died of a morphine overdose after Sadrinia prescribed her morphine twice within three days. The prescriptions were given following a dental procedure that Sadrinia performed on Witt. Witt had a history of drug addiction and mental illness, which she did not disclose to Sadrinia. The morphine dosage prescribed by Sadrinia was significantly higher than what is typically prescribed for dental pain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky admitted testimony from several of Sadrinia’s former employees about his prior bad acts, which were unrelated to the conduct charged in the indictment. The court ruled this testimony as intrinsic evidence of the crimes charged. The jury acquitted Sadrinia on three counts related to earlier prescriptions but convicted him on the counts related to the morphine prescriptions on August 24 and August 26, 2020. Sadrinia was sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that there was sufficient evidence to support Sadrinia’s conviction. However, the court agreed with Sadrinia that the district court improperly admitted testimony about unrelated bad acts as intrinsic evidence. The appellate court held that this testimony was not intrinsic to the charged conduct and should not have been admitted. The court vacated Sadrinia’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court did not address Sadrinia’s other arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of a toxicology report. View "United States v. Sadrinia" on Justia Law

Allen Walker pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute and dispense controlled substances and was sentenced to 96 months in prison on August 20, 2015. He did not appeal, making the judgment final on September 3, 2015. Walker had until September 3, 2016, to file a habeas motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In August 2016, Walker sent a letter to the district court requesting more time to file his motion and for the appointment of counsel, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his request on jurisdictional grounds but provided a form for filing a § 2255 motion. Walker filed his motion pro se on August 17, 2017, almost a year after the deadline.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Walker's motion as untimely, despite the government not raising the statute of limitations defense. Walker appealed, and the case was remanded to determine if the government's failure to raise the defense constituted forfeiture or waiver. The district court concluded it was forfeiture and again denied Walker's motion as time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government waived the statute of limitations defense by not raising it despite being aware of the timeliness issue. The court noted that the government had multiple opportunities to address the statute of limitations but chose to focus on the merits of Walker's claim instead. Consequently, the district court erred in considering the timeliness issue sua sponte. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of Walker's § 2255 motion. View "Walker v. United States" on Justia Law

Patrick Reed was convicted of drug trafficking, drug possession, firearm possession, and evidence tampering. The police, with the help of confidential informants, conducted controlled drug purchases from Reed near a house on Larchmont Drive in Sandusky, Ohio. A search warrant for the house led to the discovery of firearms, ammunition, cash, drug paraphernalia, and drugs. Evidence linking Reed to the house was also found. During the trial, a detective testified about the investigation and the search, including information from a confidential informant about where Reed hid drugs. The trial court instructed the jury to consider the informant's tip only to explain the detective's actions, not for the truth of the matter asserted.Reed appealed, arguing that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated because the informant did not testify, preventing cross-examination. The Ohio Court of Appeals rejected this claim, stating that the trial court's instructions to the jury were sufficient. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear Reed's appeal. Reed then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, which was dismissed. The district court certified one question for review: whether the Ohio trial court properly admitted the detective's testimony about the informant's tip.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to non-hearsay statements, and the informant's tip was admitted for a non-hearsay purpose—to explain the detective's actions. The court found that the Ohio courts' decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Reed's habeas petition. View "Reed v. May" on Justia Law

Randy Erickson, an inmate at Gogebic County Jail, Michigan, was involved in an incident with Deputy Sheriff Scott Voit. Erickson, who was serving a sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, had an altercation with Voit after making a disrespectful comment. Voit responded by canceling Erickson's family visit, which led Erickson to act out by hitting and kicking the cell door. Voit then handcuffed Erickson and took him to a holding cell, where he threw Erickson to the ground and kneed him in the back. Erickson later sought medical attention for injuries including a fractured rib and back contusions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Voit's motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Voit used excessive force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. However, the court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that Voit deliberately disregarded Erickson's medical needs, as there was no indication that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that Voit used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as the force used was disproportionate to the threat posed by Erickson, who was handcuffed and compliant. The court held that Voit was not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because the law clearly established that malicious and sadistic use of force violated the Eighth Amendment.However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding the claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court found no evidence that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries or that Erickson requested medical care from Voit. Therefore, the court held that Voit did not act with deliberate indifference to Erickson's medical needs.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Erickson v. Gogebic County" on Justia Law

Dwayne Robinson was convicted by a jury for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court imposed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) minimum punishment, finding that Robinson had three prior qualifying offenses committed on different occasions. Robinson appealed, raising four claims: a Sixth Amendment violation due to the district court responding to a jury note without his counsel’s input, the court’s failure to grant a mistrial after detectives implied he had shot at someone, incorrect jury instructions regarding gun ownership and possession, and the district court’s application of the ACCA without a jury determination on whether his prior offenses occurred on different occasions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville initially reviewed the case. Robinson did not properly object to the court’s response to the jury note, the failure to grant a mistrial, or the jury instructions, leading to a review for plain error. The district court found Robinson’s three prior offenses occurred on different occasions, thus applying the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Robinson’s failure to object to the jury note response, mistrial denial, and jury instructions meant these issues were reviewed for plain error. The court found no obvious mistakes in these areas. Regarding the ACCA application, the court acknowledged intervening Supreme Court precedent requiring a jury to determine if prior offenses occurred on different occasions. However, the court found this error harmless because the record clearly showed Robinson’s offenses were separated by many years. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Tyler Venema, an inmate with a history of mental illness and suicide attempts, committed suicide by asphyxiation with a plastic bag while in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC). Venema's estate filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jodi DeAngelo, the warden of WCC, alleging that her failure to train and supervise corrections officers led to Venema's death, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The estate claimed that DeAngelo knew about the risk posed by plastic bags and the officers' failure to remove them from at-risk inmates' cells.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied DeAngelo's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, finding that the estate's allegations were sufficient to establish that DeAngelo implicitly authorized or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of her subordinates. DeAngelo appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the estate plausibly alleged that DeAngelo knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of her subordinates by failing to train and supervise them properly. The court also found a causal connection between DeAngelo's actions and Venema's death, as her failure to enforce policies against providing plastic bags to at-risk inmates could reasonably be expected to result in harm. The court concluded that Venema's Eighth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, and thus, DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Venema v. West" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Campbell, the owner and lead doctor at Physicians Primary Care (PPC), and Mark Dyer, a nurse practitioner at PPC, were indicted in 2020 on multiple counts related to overprescribing opioids and engaging in a scheme to seek fraudulent reimbursements from health insurance providers. The indictment included charges of unlawfully distributing controlled substances, conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health-care fraud, conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, and money laundering.The case proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The jury found Campbell guilty on several counts, including conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health-care fraud, conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, and money laundering. Dyer was also found guilty on similar counts. The district court sentenced Campbell to 105 months of imprisonment and Dyer to 60 months, followed by three years of supervised release for both. The district court also ordered restitution payments from both defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendants challenged the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The appellate court found that the jury instructions, although not fully compliant with the Supreme Court's decision in Ruan v. United States, were adequate under the court's precedents. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health-care fraud, and money laundering. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of government experts and other evidence.The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that any potential errors in the district court’s intended-loss calculation for sentencing were harmless, as the sentences imposed were well below the applicable Guidelines range. The court also noted that the defendants failed to properly appeal the restitution order, making it outside the scope of the current appeal. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Adam Fox and Barry Croft, Jr. planned to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. They were convicted by a federal jury on all charges, with Fox receiving a 192-month sentence and Croft a 235-month sentence. On appeal, they argued insufficient evidence for their convictions, errors by the district court in not conducting a "Remmer" hearing for a biased juror, limiting cross-examination time, and restricting the admissibility of certain informant statements.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan initially tried the case, resulting in a hung jury for Fox and Croft, while co-defendants Harris and Caserta were acquitted. Upon retrial, Fox and Croft were found guilty. They appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and found ample evidence supporting the convictions. The court noted that Fox and Croft's actions, including reconnaissance missions and detailed planning, demonstrated a clear agreement to kidnap Governor Whitmer. The court also found sufficient evidence for Croft's possession of an unregistered destructive device and rejected the entrapment defense, citing substantial predisposition to commit the crimes.Regarding the "Remmer" hearing, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as the allegations of juror bias were not credible. The court also found no abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination time, as defense counsel had ample warning and opportunity to question witnesses effectively. Lastly, the court ruled that the exclusion of certain informant statements was harmless error, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Fox and Croft on all counts. View "United States v. Croft" on Justia Law