Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Between 1994 and 2018, the defendant sexually abused three boys, beginning with C.C. in 1994, followed by B.A. around 2005–06, and J.G. in 2017. The abuse included interstate travel with C.C., during which the defendant filmed some of the acts, and the creation of sexually explicit images and videos of all three victims. In 2021, law enforcement recovered thumb drives containing thousands of images of child pornography, including depictions of the three boys. The defendant was indicted on five federal counts: transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, two counts of child exploitation, possession of child pornography, and committing sexual exploitation while a registered sex offender.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the first three counts, rejecting arguments that Count One was time-barred and that the indictment was insufficient. After the defendant waived his right to a jury trial, the court convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to life plus ten years’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed, challenging the statute of limitations, the sufficiency of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the application of a sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the extended statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applied to Count One, making the prosecution timely. It found the indictment sufficient for all challenged counts, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support each conviction, and upheld the sentencing enhancement, determining that the defendant’s prior Tennessee convictions related to the sexual exploitation of children as required by federal law. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Deakins" on Justia Law

Federal agents began investigating an individual due to his connections with a known drug dealer. Over several months, agents conducted multiple controlled purchases of fentanyl and cocaine from him, using an undercover officer. During the final controlled buy, agents tracked the individual’s cell phone to a specific residence, observed him leave that house, conduct the drug sale, and return immediately afterward. Based on these observations, agents obtained a search warrant for the residence, where they found large quantities of drugs, cash, firearms, and drug paraphernalia. The individual and his aunt were present during the search.A grand jury indicted the individual on multiple drug and firearm charges. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the suppression motion. The defendant then pleaded guilty to several counts but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution, resulting in a 106-month prison sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, relying on precedent that observing a suspect leave a residence, conduct a drug sale, and return provides a sufficient nexus to justify a search. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement, finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that the defendant exercised de facto control over the premises, given the evidence found and his admitted possession of the contraband. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in all respects. View "United States v. Florence" on Justia Law

In early 2021, United States postal inspectors in Cleveland became suspicious of two packages sent between Ohio and California, both exhibiting characteristics commonly associated with drug trafficking, such as high cash-paid postage, mismatched sender and recipient information, and declined delivery signatures. After a certified narcotics detection dog named Ciga alerted to both packages, inspectors obtained search warrants and discovered a large sum of cash in one package and over a kilogram of fentanyl in the other. Subsequent investigation and a sting operation led to the arrest of Jaavaid McCarley-Connin, who was indicted on federal drug and firearm charges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed McCarley-Connin’s motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the package searches. He argued that, under Florida v. Harris, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the reliability of the canine’s alert, having presented extrinsic evidence to that effect. The government responded that Harris applied only to warrantless searches and that, for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, a defendant must meet the requirements of Franks v. Delaware to obtain such a hearing. The district court agreed with the government, denied the evidentiary hearing and suppression motions, and McCarley-Connin subsequently pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Florida v. Harris does not entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing or consideration of extrinsic evidence regarding a canine’s reliability when the search is conducted pursuant to a warrant. Instead, the Franks v. Delaware standard governs such challenges. Because McCarley-Connin did not request a Franks hearing, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of his motions and concluded that the search warrants were supported by probable cause. View "United States v. McCarley-Connin" on Justia Law

A woman identified as E.J. was carjacked by two masked men in a Detroit store parking lot. She observed the men in the store, noting one was light-skinned and the other dark-skinned. After the incident, a store customer who knew the light-skinned man from school provided E.J. with his name and later sent both E.J. and the investigating officer photos and information from his Facebook profile. Before a police-arranged photo lineup, the customer sent E.J. a picture of the suspect, Kyrrah Radaker-Carter, despite police instructions not to do so. E.J. confirmed to the customer that the man in the photo was the carjacker. The next day, E.J. participated in a six-photo lineup and immediately identified Radaker-Carter, who was later arrested while driving the stolen car.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Radaker-Carter’s motion to suppress E.J.’s identification, finding that due process did not require exclusion because the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement and the photo array itself was not unduly suggestive. Radaker-Carter subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 122 months’ imprisonment, then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that E.J.’s identification was constitutionally admissible because the suggestive circumstances—E.J. seeing Radaker-Carter’s photo before the lineup—were not orchestrated by law enforcement. The court also found that the police-arranged photo lineup was not unduly suggestive, as the differences in the photos were minor and did not improperly single out Radaker-Carter. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Radaker-Carter" on Justia Law

Two men were arrested in Louisville, Kentucky, in 2020 and charged with being felons in possession of firearms. Both had prior convictions for crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. One defendant pleaded guilty, while the other was convicted by a jury. At sentencing, the government sought to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes a mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence for offenders with at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, provided those offenses were committed on different occasions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, following then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, determined that the judge—not a jury—should decide whether the prior offenses occurred on different occasions. The court found that both defendants qualified for the ACCA enhancement and sentenced each to fifteen years in prison. Both defendants appealed, arguing that, in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Erlinger v. United States, the question of whether their offenses occurred on different occasions should have been decided by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the cases. Applying a harmless error analysis as required by recent precedent, the court found that, for one defendant, the record established beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found his offenses occurred on different occasions, so his sentence was affirmed. For the other defendant, the court concluded that the government had not met its burden to show the error was harmless, given similarities among the offenses and gaps in the record. As a result, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for further proceedings. The main holding is that failure to submit the ACCA “different occasions” question to a jury is subject to harmless error review, and the outcome depends on the specific facts of each case. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of possessing a machinegun conversion device, known as a Glock switch, which both parties agreed qualified as a machinegun under federal law. He had pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement but subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute criminalizing possession of machineguns, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), violated his Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that his plea agreement did not bar his constitutional challenge and rejecting his Second Amendment argument. The defendant then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, maintaining that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen had undermined prior circuit precedent upholding § 922(o).The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo, as the case involved the constitutionality of a federal statute. The appellate court held that its prior decision in Hamblen v. United States, which relied on District of Columbia v. Heller, remained binding after Bruen. The court explained that Bruen did not overrule Heller or Hamblen, and that the tradition of prohibiting “dangerous and unusual weapons” such as machineguns was reaffirmed. The court concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of machineguns covered by § 922(o). Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

An orthopedic surgeon was convicted by a jury in Ohio of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of tampering with records, following allegations by two patients of inappropriate conduct during medical examinations. The prosecution’s case included testimony from the alleged victims, peer physicians, and investigators, as well as various exhibits such as interview recordings and medical records. The trial court admitted these exhibits, and the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, resulting in a sentence of jail time, work release, community control, a fine, and sex offender registration.The defendant appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, specifically challenging the proof of sexual gratification and intent to defraud. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that a rational juror could infer the necessary elements from the evidence presented. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to review the case further. The defendant then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, raising several claims and seeking to supplement the record with additional documents, including trial exhibits. The magistrate judge allowed some supplementation but excluded certain trial exhibits. The district court denied both the motion to expand the record and the habeas petition, concluding that the state court record, including the trial transcript, was sufficient for review.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether the district court erred by adjudicating the habeas petition without including all trial exhibits in the record. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court was not required to review every trial exhibit, as long as it had the relevant portions of the record necessary to evaluate the claims. The court found no error in the district court’s process and affirmed the denial of the motion to expand the record. View "Heiney v. Moore" on Justia Law

The defendant was previously convicted of transporting child pornography and, after serving most of his sentence, was released to a halfway house. While there, he engaged in a series of text conversations with his preteen daughter, asking her about his past conviction, her views on sex, and whether she thought there was anything wrong with adults or children engaging in sexual acts, as depicted in pictures or videos. He also instructed her to keep their conversations secret. The defendant’s ex-sister-in-law, who had access to the daughter's phone records, became concerned and forwarded the messages to the FBI. A subsequent investigation of the defendant’s phone, despite his attempts to delete its contents, revealed incriminating text messages, bookmarks to websites with suggestive titles, and 163 images sexualizing children, seven of which were alleged to be child pornography.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the defendant’s pretrial motions to exclude most of the images and the website bookmarks, finding them relevant to knowledge and intent. The court also denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds. At trial, the government presented evidence including the images, text messages, and testimony from the investigating agent and the ex-sister-in-law. The defendant argued that others at the halfway house could have accessed his phone and that he only sought “child erotica,” not child pornography. The jury found him guilty of knowing receipt of child pornography and specifically found the seven images met the statutory definition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and held that a rational jury could find the images constituted child pornography. The court also found no error in admitting the website bookmarks or the text messages with the defendant’s daughter, as they were relevant to intent and not unfairly prejudicial. The court rejected both facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges to the statute. The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Mercer-Kinser" on Justia Law

A man in Michigan was found by sheriff’s deputies shooting a rifle in his backyard while intoxicated and under the influence of marijuana. Upon investigation, deputies discovered multiple firearms, three pipe bombs, and a large amount of ammunition in his home. The man admitted to regularly using marijuana and building the pipe bombs himself. He was convicted under state law for possessing a firearm while intoxicated and later pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing unregistered firearms (the pipe bombs).The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, following the Sentencing Guidelines, determined that the defendant was a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) due to his unlawful drug use and firearm possession. This resulted in a higher base offense level and a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months; the court imposed a 52-month sentence. The defendant objected, arguing that applying § 922(g)(3) to him violated the Second Amendment, but the district court rejected this argument, finding that he posed a threat to the public.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether § 922(g)(3) could constitutionally be applied to the defendant. The court held that, under its precedent and Supreme Court guidance, Congress may disarm groups it deems dangerous, provided individuals have an opportunity to show they are not actually dangerous. The court found that the defendant’s conduct—firing a rifle while drunk and high in a residential area—demonstrated he was dangerous. Therefore, the application of § 922(g)(3) to him was constitutional, and the district court’s sentence was affirmed. View "United States v. VanOchten" on Justia Law

A physician was recruited by staffing and telehealth companies to perform “chart reviews” for patients who were purportedly in need of durable medical equipment (DME) such as braces. She believed she was reviewing and approving charts for patients already evaluated by other providers. The companies she worked with were later found to be engaged in a scheme to defraud Medicare by using physicians’ signatures to order DME and submit claims. The physician never personally examined the patients, and there was no evidence she submitted claims to Medicare or knew the amounts billed. She received approximately $78,000 in compensation for her work over three years.A grand jury indicted her on six counts of healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. At trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the government argued she defrauded Medicare by signing DME orders for patients she had not personally evaluated. The jury heard testimony from patients, Medicare investigators, and a physician, none of whom were qualified as expert witnesses. The district court excluded exculpatory statements the physician made to an insurance investigator about her belief that patients had been previously examined. The jury found her guilty on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in three ways: by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove the defendant knew her conduct was unlawful; by excluding the physician’s statements reflecting her contemporaneous state of mind; and by allowing lay witnesses to testify about medical necessity without expert qualification. The court found these errors were not harmless, vacated the convictions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Singh" on Justia Law