Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Bruce Wright of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and of eleven counts of bank fraud arising from his participation in a scheme to submit false draw requests and invoices to obtain bank loans. The district court sentenced Wright to thirty-three months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay over $1 million in restitution. Wright raised several issues on appeal, concerning jury instructions, withheld impeachment evidence, and bank loss and restitution amounts. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant James Russian was charged with four drug- and gun-related offenses. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of two cell phones seized at the time of his arrest, arguing the search warrant was invalid for lack of particularity. The district court denied the motion, concluding even if the warrant was invalid, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. At trial, text messages and photographs from the phones were introduced against defendant. After the jury convicted him on all counts, the court imposed a total sentence of 137 months’ imprisonment. Defendant challenged the admission of the evidence obtained from the cell phone searches, as well as the sentences imposed on several of the counts. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions: the officers conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant, and even if that were not the case, any Fourth Amendment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As for defendant’s sentences, the Court remanded for resentencing, finding the district court erred in relying on an improperly calculated guidelines range for the sentences on the contested counts. View "United States v. Russian" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged in a two-count superseding indictment with child sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in child sex trafficking. The superseding indictment asserted only one basis by which the government would seek to prove mens rea as to the child victim’s age: that Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to observe the child before engaging in a commercial sex transaction. Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to allege the mens rea element of child sex trafficking. The district court agreed and dismissed the indictment. The government appealed, arguing it could meet its burden with regard to Defendants’ awareness of the child victim’s age by showing only that Defendants had “a reasonable opportunity to observe” the victim. The Tenth Circuit agreed and reversed the district court. View "United States v. Duong" on Justia Law

Howard Collins was serving a term of supervised release as part of his sentence for knowingly and intentionally distributing more than five grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine). His supervised release was revoked after he failed several drug tests. He was reincarcerated and received a new term of supervised release. His supervised release was revoked a second time after he again failed multiple drug tests and failed to participate in a required substance-abuse program. Following his second revocation, the district court sentenced Collins to twelve months’ imprisonment, having determined that the maximum term of imprisonment that it could impose under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) was one year. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of section 3583(e)(3), reversed the court’s sentencing order and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2009, as part of a federal law-enforcement investigation, FBI and Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) agents arrested twenty-three people and searched twelve properties in and near three Utah cities. The operation targeted persons possessing and trafficking in Native American artifacts illegally taken from the Four Corners region of the United States. One day after agents searched Dr. James D. Redd’s home, arrested him as part of this operation, and released him on bond, Dr. Redd committed suicide. Dr. Redd’s Estate (“the Estate”) sued sixteen named FBI and BLM agents and twenty-one unnamed agents under “Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,” (403 U.S. 388 (1971)), claiming that the agents had violated Dr. Redd’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted the Defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the Estate’s claims except one: a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against the lead BLM agent, Daniel Love. Later, on qualified-immunity grounds, the district court granted Agent Love summary judgment on that final claim. The Estate appealed the district court’s dismissal of the excessive-force claim. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Estate of James Redd v. Love" on Justia Law

Defendant Donald Bowers was previously involved in a civil trade secret misappropriation case that was litigated in the United States Federal District Court. During the course of that litigation, Bowers willfully and repeatedly violated a permanent injunction, and refused to purge himself of civil contempt. His actions resulted in findings of civil contempt against him, judgments against him for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, and, ultimately, a criminal referral to the United States Attorney for the District of Utah. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Bowers on two counts of contempt. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Bowers guilty of both counts. Bowers was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifteen months, to be followed by a thirty-six month term of supervised release. He was also directed, as a condition of supervised release, to make monthly payments on the outstanding amount owed by him to the plaintiff in the underlying civil case. Bowers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in: (1) imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring him to make monthly payments on the outstanding judgments owed to the plaintiff in the civil case; (2) denying his motion for disclosure of the criminal referral; and (3) sentencing him to a term of imprisonment that exceeded six months. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law

On October, 20, 2014, at approximately 7:43 p.m., Denver police officers were patrolling West 10th Avenue near its intersection with Mariposa Street in Denver, in a marked police vehicle. It was dark out and the intersection was unlit. The two officers observed defendant-appellee Phillip Hernandez walking next to a fenced construction site. The officers considered this part of town “to be a high-crime area due to its proximity to the Lincoln Park housing project and the frequency of theft and drug dealing occurring therein.” Officer Morghem asked Hernandez where he was coming from and what he was doing, to which Hernandez replied that he was coming from his grandmother’s house and was “just trying to go home.” Officer Morghem pressed Hernandez for his grandmother’s address, but Hernandez could not remember it. Up to this point, the entire conversation took place while Hernandez was walking, with the two officers driving close beside him. Officer Walton noted in the police report he filed the next day that Hernandez “tried not to stop and talk to us.” Hernandez eventually did stop, and the officers were able to talk to him. Hernandez provided his real name but a false birth date. Although Officer Morghem did not have Hernandez’s correct date of birth, he was able to pull up additional information on Hernandez via the in-car computer, finding Hernandez’s mug shot and determined that he had an active warrant for a parole violation. Hernandez was arrested on the active warrant, and ultimately indicted and convicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence retrieved after his encounter with the officers, claiming the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the motion. The government appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from an officer-involved shooting in the early morning hours of September 19, 2011. At approximately 3:50 a.m., plaintiff Matthew Carabajal was driving a vehicle containing three other individuals, including his infant son V.M.C., when he noticed that he was being followed by a police vehicle with its lights and siren activated. Plaintiff drove for several blocks. Other officers were notified and reported to the scene. Plaintiff pulled over, the officers exited their police cars, and one officer stepped in front of plaintiff’s vehicle. Soon thereafter, plaintiff’s vehicle began to move forward. The officer fired two rounds from his shotgun at plaintiff, severely injuring him. At that time, V.M.C. was still in the vehicle, secured in a car seat behind the front passenger. V.M.C., through Mathew and V.M.C.’s mother, Arianna Martinez, appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Officers Joshua Thornton and Michael Sutton, and Defendant-Appellee City of Cheyenne (“the City”). On appeal, plaintiffs challenged: (1) the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful seizure of V.M.C. by Officer Thornton when he shot into the vehicle that V.M.C. occupied; (2) the grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers based upon qualified immunity as to Carabajal’s excessive force claims; and (3) the district court’s initial dismissal of, and later grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on, Plaintiffs’ claims of negligent hiring of Officer Thornton. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

This case began with plaintiff Clyde Rife, sitting on a motorcycle next to a road, unable to recall the date, the time, or even what he had been doing in a town he had just visited. When approached by a state trooper, Rife said that he was fine. Nonetheless, the trooper questioned Rife and concluded that he was intoxicated on pain medication and had been in a motorcycle accident. These conclusions led the trooper to arrest Rife for public intoxication. After the arrest, the trooper drove Rife to jail. Rife groaned and complained of pain in his heart and chest. Upon arriving at the jail, Rife was put in a holding cell. The scene was observed by a cellmate, who said that Rife had repeatedly complained about pain. Nonetheless, Rife was not provided medical attention. The arrest itself and the later lack of medical care led Rife to sue: (1) the trooper, two jail officials, and the entity operating the jail for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; and (2) the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety for negligent failure to provide medical care. As a threshold question, the Tenth Circuit concluded probable cause existed to arrest Rife. With regard to his other claims, the Court found that the district court thought no one could reasonably infer either deliberate indifference or negligence. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, concluding that both could have been reasonably inferred from the evidence. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rife v. McCurtain County Jail Trust" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Thornton appealed his seventy-eight month prison sentence. The issue this case presented was whether the district court committed procedural error by basing the length of Thornton’s sentence, in part, on the treatment and vocational services he would receive in jail. Federal judges may not use imprisonment as a means to promote defendants’ correction or rehabilitation. In this case, the district court calculated the advisory prison range under the Sentencing Guidelines and Thornton moved for a downward variance. The court denied that request, offering several reasons not to impose a below-guidelines sentence, including that Thornton “needs enough time in prison to get treatment and vocational benefits.” Thornton claimed on appeal, without having objected in the district court, that the court’s rationale for sentencing violated precedential caselaw. With this new argument the Tenth Circuit reviewed this case for plain error. Finding none, the Court affirmed the district court’s sentence. View "United States v. Thornton" on Justia Law