Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Early Willard Woodmore, III, who was convicted for his role in a methamphetamine distribution enterprise in eastern Oklahoma. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began investigating the Woodmore organization in 2018 after receiving a tip about methamphetamine shipments. Early Woodmore, along with his siblings Calvin and Amber, led the organization. They received methamphetamine from Kimberly Noel in California, who shipped the drugs concealed in everyday objects. The organization distributed the drugs in smaller quantities throughout eastern Oklahoma. Early Woodmore was arrested in April 2019 and continued to communicate with his sister Amber, who took over operations. The DEA intercepted a significant methamphetamine shipment in August 2019, leading to further charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Early Woodmore on five counts, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money laundering. He proceeded to a joint trial with his brother Calvin in April 2022. The jury convicted Early Woodmore on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and 240 months for the money laundering charges, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Early Woodmore raised three main challenges: judicial bias due to the district court's handling of a custody dispute during the trial, an erroneous jury instruction regarding the right of attorneys to interview witnesses, and the lack of a definitional instruction for "methamphetamine (actual)." The Tenth Circuit rejected all three challenges. The court found no judicial bias, upheld the jury instruction on attorney interviews, and determined that the term "methamphetamine (actual)" was sufficiently clear based on the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Woodmore" on Justia Law

Brandon K. Thompson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The incident occurred when employees at an AT&T store in Sandy, Utah, noticed Thompson tampering with Apple watches. After confronting him about a missing watch, an employee activated a security alarm, alerting the police. When officers arrived, Thompson initially agreed to a pat-down but then fled the store. During the ensuing chase, Thompson grabbed an officer's firearm, partially pulling it out of the holster and firing a round into the ground. He was eventually subdued and detained.The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviewed the case, where Thompson was found guilty and sentenced to 110 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Thompson appealed, arguing that the jury instructions on actual possession were incorrect, the jury was not instructed on his theory of the case, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate knowing possession, and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions regarding actual possession, as the instructions accurately stated the law. The court also found that the district court adequately conveyed Thompson’s theory of the case through its instructions. Furthermore, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to show that Thompson had actual possession of the firearm, given the video evidence and witness testimonies. Lastly, the court affirmed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause, citing precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Federal law criminalizes the possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Jorge Enrique Barragan-Gutierrez was indicted for this crime after a firearm and drugs were found in his home. He admitted to receiving a gun as payment in a drug transaction and pleaded guilty, resulting in a 211-month sentence, later reduced to 181 months. He now challenges his sentence through a habeas petition, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi render his sentence unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming denied his petition, finding it time-barred. The court concluded that the Supreme Court decisions did not apply retroactively to his case and that his argument would fail on the merits because he was convicted for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime, not merely for possession.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Supreme Court's decisions in Bruen and Rahimi did not recognize a new constitutional right applicable to Barragan-Gutierrez’s circumstances. The court noted that these decisions did not extend to relieve felons convicted before those rulings. Consequently, Barragan-Gutierrez’s petition was deemed untimely, as the one-year period to challenge his conviction had passed in 2016. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his petition. View "United States v. Barragan-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Germaine Coulter was found guilty of child sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking, resulting in a 360-month imprisonment sentence. The district court ordered Coulter to pay $386,000 in restitution to two victims. Coulter appealed, arguing that the government failed to prove he was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries and that the restitution amount was unsupported by evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma initially handled the case, where Coulter was convicted by a jury on two counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both. Following the appeal, the government sought restitution, and the district court awarded $198,000 for Doe 1 and $188,000 for Doe 2, covering ten years of therapy, psychiatric treatment, and medication. The court rejected the government's request for lifetime treatment costs and lost wages, finding them speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government met its burden of proving Coulter was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries, as the expert testimony established a direct link between the victims' symptoms and the sex trafficking. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to limit the restitution to ten years, as it was a reasonable projection based on the evidence presented. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution award. View "United States v. Coulter" on Justia Law

Derek Ray Flaming was convicted of distribution and receipt of obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children, aggravated sexual abuse, and attempting to cause a minor to engage in a sexual act by placing her in fear. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his minor stepdaughter, Jane Doe, in South Korea and Colorado. Flaming showed Doe child pornography, sexually assaulted her, and attempted to obtain oral sex from her. Evidence included Skype messages where Flaming threatened to assault Doe if his wife did not return home immediately.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma convicted Flaming on all counts. Flaming appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. He argued that the government failed to prove he was not a South Korean national, that there was insufficient evidence he received child pornography, and that there was insufficient evidence he placed Doe in fear to engage in a sexual act. He also contended that the district court improperly limited cross-examination of Doe and erroneously admitted summaries of Skype chats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Flaming was not a South Korean national, since the Department of Defense records and other evidence indicated he was solely a U.S. citizen. The court also found sufficient evidence that Flaming received child pornography, since the images were found on a computer he had access to, and his personal Skype account was used to send child pornographic images. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Flaming placed Doe in fear, given his previous sexual abuse and the circumstances of the incident.The court rejected Flaming’s evidentiary challenges, ruling that the district court did not violate his Confrontation Clause rights or abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, since Flaming failed to lay a proper foundation for the alleged prior inconsistent statements. The court also upheld the admission of summaries of Skype chats, finding they were accurate and the underlying information was admissible and voluminous. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Flaming" on Justia Law

Luis Gutierrez was arrested in May 2020 after New Mexico state officers found a loaded, stolen pistol in his motel room. He was charged with both federal and state crimes. In October 2021, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a household member in state court and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. He was released on May 5, 2022. Gutierrez was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm on August 11, 2020, while in state custody. However, he was not notified of the federal charge until his release from state custody.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court found that the delay in the federal case was justified due to complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that Gutierrez failed to show any prejudice caused by the delay. Gutierrez then pleaded guilty to the federal charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the multi-factor test from Barker v. Wingo and found that while the length of the delay and Gutierrez’s assertion of his right favored him, the reason for the delay was neutral, and he failed to show any prejudice. The court held that the Speedy Trial clause does not apply to postconviction sentencing and that Gutierrez’s alleged harm at sentencing was not cognizable under the Sixth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and found that Gutierrez’s appellate waiver was enforceable, barring his challenge to the application of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6 to enhance his sentence. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Gary Jordan, the defendant, pled guilty to armed bank robbery and other crimes, receiving a thirty-year prison sentence. After his plea, he discovered that prosecutors had recorded his attorney-client meetings before he entered his plea. Although the prosecutors claimed they did not watch the recordings, Jordan moved to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the prosecutors' actions rendered his plea unconstitutionally unknowing and involuntary.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Jordan's motion, stating that he could only challenge his guilty plea through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the alleged unconstitutional conduct occurred before the plea. Jordan did not raise a claim of prejudice or ineffective assistance of counsel, relying solely on the structural-error theory from Shillinger v. Haworth. The district court concluded that Jordan could not prevail on this basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that under Tollett v. Henderson, a defendant who has pled guilty cannot raise independent claims of constitutional violations that occurred before the plea. Instead, the defendant must show that the plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the plea was induced by threats, misrepresentations, or improper prosecutorial promises. The court found that Jordan's challenge failed because he did not pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and relied solely on the now-overruled structural-error rule from Shillinger. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jordan's motion to vacate his guilty plea. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on charges of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He reached a plea agreement with the government to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge in exchange for the dismissal of the distribution charge. However, during the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant claimed he was only partially guilty and stated that he joined the conspiracy under duress. Consequently, the district court rejected his guilty plea. The defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on both charges.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming initially handled the case. After the defendant's guilty plea was rejected, the case went to trial, where a jury found him guilty of both conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The defendant appealed the district court's decision to reject his guilty plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the district court erred in rejecting his guilty plea, asserting that his plea colloquy provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea and did not establish a duress defense. The Tenth Circuit assumed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea but held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea. The court noted that the district court had the discretion to reject a guilty plea when the defendant claims innocence, and it found no plain error in the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Charles Warner was convicted in federal district court in New Mexico for being a felon in possession of a firearm and dealing in firearms without a license. Warner appealed his conviction on four grounds: he argued that he was not prohibited from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), that his suppression challenge regarding evidence seized at his house was improperly denied, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of dealing in firearms without a license, and that the number of firearms in his possession was improperly counted.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Warner's pre-trial motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge and his motion to suppress evidence seized from his computers. At trial, Warner testified that he knew he was a convicted felon but did not know he was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. The jury convicted Warner on both counts. At sentencing, the district court applied a sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms, based on expert testimony, and sentenced Warner to 33 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Warner is a "prohibited person" under § 922(g) because he has two prior state-law felony convictions for which he could have been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment and has not had all of his civil rights restored. The court also rejected Warner's constitutional challenge to § 922(g), holding that it is foreclosed by recent Tenth Circuit precedent. The court found that any alleged error in the denial of Warner's suppression motion was harmless because none of the evidence Warner sought to suppress was used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Warner of dealing in firearms without a license and affirmed the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Warner's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Warner" on Justia Law

Lance Maytubby was called to the police station by Officer T.J. White to answer questions regarding accusations of sexual abuse made by his nieces, R.L. and Z.L. During the interview, Officer White informed Maytubby that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. The interview, which was recorded, took place in a non-coercive environment, and Officer White maintained a friendly tone. Despite initially denying the accusations, Maytubby eventually confessed after Officer White suggested that mitigating circumstances, such as Maytubby being a pastor and a family man, could be included in the report to the district attorney.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a pretrial suppression hearing where Officer White testified. The district court denied Maytubby's motion to suppress his confession, finding that the interrogation was not coercive and that Maytubby's statements were voluntary. The court noted factors such as the short duration of the interview, the non-coercive environment, and the absence of physical abuse or aggressive behavior by Officer White. A jury later convicted Maytubby on several counts of aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact, leading to a life sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer White's statements during the interview were not coercive and did not overbear Maytubby's will. The court found that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner, and Officer White's comments about including mitigating factors in the report were proper and did not imply control over sentencing. The court concluded that Maytubby's confession was voluntary and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Maytubby" on Justia Law