Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Mark Hartman was indicted for three counts of rape in Montgomery County, Ohio, following a late-night encounter. After a bench trial, he was convicted on all counts. Hartman filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial counsel improperly cross-examined witnesses and misled him into waiving his right to a jury trial. Ohio courts rejected his claims on the merits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Hartman relief on his cross-examination claim, finding that his counsel introduced evidence of force that the state had not proven, making the trial fundamentally unfair. However, the court denied relief on Hartman’s jury-waiver claim, holding that the strategy to advise a bench trial was sound and that Hartman failed to show prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief on the cross-examination claim, finding that the Ohio Court of Appeals reasonably determined that trial counsel pursued a valid impeachment strategy during cross-examination. The court noted that the strategy aimed to reveal inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, which is a common and reasonable trial tactic.Regarding the jury-waiver claim, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. The court held that the Ohio Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that trial counsel’s advice to waive a jury trial was within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. The court found that counsel’s advice, despite some factual inaccuracies, did not render the waiver unknowing or unintelligent.In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of a conditional habeas writ on the cross-examination claim, affirmed the denial of the jury-waiver claim, and remanded with instructions to deny Hartman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Hartman v. Yost" on Justia Law

A 39-year-old man developed a relationship with a 16-year-old girl, his coworker, and began exchanging sexually explicit messages and images with her over Facebook. He instructed the minor to take and send him photos and videos of herself engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Forensic analysis confirmed the minor complied with these requests on multiple occasions. The man admitted to using a Facebook alias, knowing the girl’s age, and exchanging sexual content with her. He was indicted for two counts of causing a minor to produce child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of causing a minor to produce child pornography, and the remaining charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, at sentencing, applied two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements: a two-level increase for using a minor to commit the offense, and a five-level increase for engaging in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct. The defendant objected to both enhancements, arguing they were either duplicative or improperly applied. The district court overruled his objections and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 270 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the enhancements. The court held that the two-level enhancement for using a minor to commit the offense was appropriate because the Guidelines did not otherwise account for the defendant’s use of the minor as both the subject and the photographer of the images. The court also upheld the five-level enhancement for a pattern of activity, finding that two separate occasions of prohibited sexual conduct were established and that the relevant conduct could include acts beyond the offense of conviction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Parkey" on Justia Law

The defendant was found guilty of felony possession of a firearm after a bench trial, having waived his right to a jury trial. The case arose from a traffic stop on December 5, 2020, where the defendant was stopped for driving past a stop bar at a traffic light. During the stop, the defendant refused to provide identification and was subsequently arrested. A search of his vehicle revealed marijuana and a loaded firearm. The defendant challenged the traffic stop, his arrest, and the vehicle search as violations of his Fourth Amendment rights and argued that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that the initial traffic stop was supported by probable cause, the arrest was justified by probable cause, and the vehicle search was permissible under the automobile exception. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the stipulated facts presented during the bench trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that the traffic stop was justified by probable cause due to the observed traffic violation. The arrest was deemed lawful based on probable cause for multiple offenses, including driving with a suspended license and refusing to provide identification. The search of the vehicle was upheld under the automobile exception, as the officers had probable cause to believe it contained illegal contraband. The court also found that the defendant's stipulation to all elements of the offense constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

Deangelus Thomas was indicted on two counts of being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for his involvement in a shooting. Although his indictment indicated potential enhanced penalties due to his criminal history, he was not formally indicted as an armed career criminal. A jury found him guilty of both counts. During sentencing, Thomas argued that he could not be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had not been indicted for it, and the jury had not found that he had three prior violent-felony convictions committed on different occasions. The district judge disagreed and imposed an enhanced 432-month sentence based on Thomas's criminal history.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis followed then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, which allowed the judge to find the necessary facts for the ACCA enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. Thomas appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence. However, the Supreme Court later decided Erlinger v. United States, which required a jury to find the three-occasions element of an ACCA conviction. The Supreme Court remanded Thomas's case for further consideration in light of Erlinger.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Erlinger errors are subject to harmless-error review. The court found that the error in Thomas's case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the Shepard documents and the Presentence Report provided clear evidence that Thomas's three prior violent felonies occurred on different occasions. The court also rejected Thomas's double jeopardy argument, concluding that the enhanced sentence did not violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Thomas's enhanced sentence. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Rodney Higgins pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. He appealed, challenging the search that led to his arrest, arguing that the search warrant lacked probable cause. From June to August 2021, Higgins was involved in a drug distribution ring. Officers used a confidential source to conduct two controlled buys from Higgins. A Drug Enforcement Administration task force officer prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Higgins’s apartment, detailing the officer’s training, the confidential source’s knowledge of Higgins’s drug activities, Higgins’s criminal history, and the controlled buys. The affidavit also included a text exchange where Higgins used coded language to indicate he had more drugs.The magistrate judge found probable cause and issued a search warrant. The search of Higgins’s apartment yielded 370 grams of methamphetamine and over 200 grams of fentanyl. Higgins was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. He moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court denied the motion. Higgins pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, raising three issues: the nexus between his drug trafficking and residence, entitlement to a hearing based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit, and the applicability of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause, establishing a fair probability that contraband would be found in Higgins’s apartment. The court also found that Higgins was not entitled to a Franks hearing, as he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of a knowing, intentional, or reckless falsehood in the affidavit. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Higgins’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Higgins" on Justia Law

The defendants, Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes, and Faraday Hosseinipour, were involved in a company called Infinity 2 Global (I2G), which the FBI determined to be a pyramid scheme. The company collected approximately $34 million from investors, most of whom lost money. After a 25-day trial, a jury convicted the defendants of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The defendants appealed their convictions, presenting numerous arguments for reversal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky initially handled the case, where the jury found the defendants guilty on both counts. The defendants were sentenced to varying prison terms: Maike received 120 months, Barnes 48 months, and Hosseinipour 30 months. The defendants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, among other issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and rejected all the defendants' arguments. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts on both counts. The court also determined that the jury instructions were appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The court affirmed the criminal judgments of Maike and Barnes. For Hosseinipour, the court affirmed her criminal judgment but vacated the district court's denial of her Rule 33 motion for a new trial, remanding her case for reconsideration of that motion. View "United States v. Maike" on Justia Law

Edwin Tavarez acted as a courier for his brother's illegal cocaine business, delivering cocaine to a restaurant in Lakewood, Ohio. After his brother's death, Tavarez continued the operation until he was arrested in February 2019. Authorities found him in possession of two kilograms of cocaine. In July 2019, Tavarez was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and use of a communications facility in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He pled guilty to the first two charges, and the third was dismissed. Tavarez was sentenced to 18 months in prison and four years of supervised release, including one year of home detention.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Tavarez's motions for compassionate release in September 2021, reducing his sentence to time served and extending his home detention. In June 2022, the court terminated the special condition of home detention. In June 2023, Tavarez filed a pro se motion for early termination of supervised release, citing good behavior and mishandling of his earned time credit. The district court denied the motion in a summary order and also denied his subsequent motion for access to the underlying documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) does not impede their review of the district court's denial of Tavarez's early termination motion. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by not demonstrating that it considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors when denying the motion. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying early termination of supervised release and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Tavarez's motion for access to documents, as there was no obligation to disclose the supervision report or its content. View "United States v. Tavarez" on Justia Law

Daniel Lockridge, a decorated combat Marine, was involved in methamphetamine trafficking after returning to the U.S. in 2009. He initially used methamphetamine to manage his PTSD and later began selling it, eventually becoming a significant supplier in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Lockridge pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 210 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. His supervised release conditions included mandatory mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, as directed by a probation officer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee imposed these conditions, and Lockridge objected, arguing that the court must preauthorize any inpatient treatment and set a frequency for drug testing, rather than delegating these decisions to a probation officer. The district court overruled his objections, leading to Lockridge's appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not relinquish its authority by not specifying the details of the treatment programs at sentencing. Instead, it retained the discretion to make these decisions closer to the time of Lockridge's supervised release, allowing the probation officer to assess his needs and recommend appropriate treatment. The court emphasized that the ultimate authority to modify or enforce the conditions of supervised release remains with the district court, ensuring compliance with Article III of the U.S. Constitution.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the delegation of certain responsibilities to the probation officer did not violate constitutional principles, as the district court retained the final decision-making authority. View "United States v. Lockridge" on Justia Law

From 2016 to 2021, Irene Michelle Fike worked at an accounting firm and later as an independent contractor for a client, J.M., and J.M.'s family. Fike used her access to J.M.'s financial accounts to pay her personal credit card bills and make purchases from online retailers. She concealed her fraud by misrepresenting J.M.'s expenditures in financial reports. Fike defrauded J.M. of $363,657.67 between April 2018 and September 2022.Fike pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2024. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced her to thirty-six months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered her to pay $405,867.08 in restitution, which included the principal amount stolen and $42,209.41 in prejudgment interest. Fike appealed, arguing that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) does not authorize prejudgment interest and that the interest calculation was speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the MVRA allows for prejudgment interest to ensure full compensation for the victim's losses. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest, as it was necessary to make J.M. whole. The court also determined that the district court had a sufficient basis for calculating the interest, relying on J.M.'s declaration of losses, which was submitted under penalty of perjury and provided a reliable basis for the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Fike" on Justia Law

Lavonce Makiri Smith was stopped by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a gun was found in his pocket. Smith moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. The incident began when Detective Garza was involved in a car accident, and Lt. Jonathan Wu, who was also at the scene, noticed a silver Chrysler that matched a stolen vehicle report. The Chrysler circled the area multiple times, and Wu observed three young Black men, including Smith, walking towards his car from the direction of the Chrysler. Wu suspected they were associated with the stolen car and might be planning a carjacking or robbery.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held an evidentiary hearing where Wu testified. The court found Wu's testimony credible and concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Smith. The court ruled that the stop was lawful due to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the frisk was justified based on the totality of the circumstances suggesting Smith was armed and dangerous. Smith entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court found that Wu's observations and the behavior of Smith and his companions, combined with the context of the stolen vehicle and the high-crime area, provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court also rejected Smith's arguments challenging the district court's factual findings and application of the law, concluding that the totality of the circumstances justified the stop and frisk. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law