Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Edgardo Esteras pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin and was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by a 6-year term of supervised release. After completing his prison term, Esteras was arrested for allegedly threatening to kill the mother of his children and firing shots into her vehicle. Although the charges were dismissed, the District Court held a revocation hearing and found that Esteras had violated the conditions of his supervised release. The court revoked his supervised release, ordered 24 months of reimprisonment, and imposed an additional three years of supervised release.Esteras's counsel objected, arguing that the District Court had impermissibly considered the factor in Section 3553(a)(2)(A). The District Court acknowledged that part of its decision was based on the need to promote respect for the law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, reasoning that Section 3583(e) does not explicitly prohibit considering Section 3553(a)(2)(A) and that excluding it would be unworkable.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and disagreed with the Sixth Circuit. The Court held that Congress's decision to exclude Section 3553(a)(2)(A) from the list of factors in Section 3583(e) implies that courts may not consider it when deciding whether to revoke a term of supervised release. The Court emphasized that supervised release is intended to fulfill rehabilitative ends and provide postconfinement assistance, not to serve as additional punishment for the original offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Esteras v. United States" on Justia Law

Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and related charges. After failing to obtain relief through direct appeal and state habeas proceedings, Rivers filed his first federal habeas petition in August 2017, which was denied by the District Court in September 2018. The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in July 2020. While his appeal was pending, Rivers discovered new evidence in his trial counsel’s client file and filed a second federal habeas petition based on this evidence.The District Court classified Rivers's second petition as a "second or successive" habeas application under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit for authorization. Rivers appealed the transfer order, arguing that his second petition should not be considered "second or successive" because his first petition was still on appeal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the pending appeal did not exempt Rivers from the requirements for successive petitions under §2244.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that once a district court enters its judgment on a first-filed habeas petition, any subsequent filing qualifies as a "second or successive" application subject to the requirements of §2244(b). The Court emphasized that the existence of a final judgment, not the status of an appeal, determines whether a filing is considered second or successive. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision, rejecting Rivers's argument that his second filing should be treated as an amendment to his initial petition. View "Rivers v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claimed that the manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, resulting in harm from the weapons' misuse. The complaint included allegations that the manufacturers knowingly supplied firearms to retail dealers who sold them illegally to Mexican traffickers, failed to impose controls on their distribution networks, and made design and marketing decisions to stimulate demand among cartel members.The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision. The First Circuit found that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thus satisfying the predicate exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the requirements for aiding and abetting liability, as they did not show that the manufacturers took affirmative acts to facilitate the illegal sales or intended to promote the criminal activities. Consequently, PLCAA barred the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos" on Justia Law

Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co. were awarded two contracts by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) for painting projects in Philadelphia. Federal regulations required subcontracting a portion of the contract to a disadvantaged business enterprise. Kousisis falsely represented that Alpha would obtain paint supplies from Markias, Inc., a prequalified disadvantaged business. However, Markias functioned only as a pass-through entity, funneling checks and invoices to and from Alpha’s actual suppliers, violating the requirement that disadvantaged businesses perform a commercially useful function. Despite this, Alpha completed the projects to PennDOT’s satisfaction and earned over $20 million in gross profit.The Government charged Alpha and Kousisis with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, based on the fraudulent-inducement theory. After a jury convicted them, they moved for acquittal, arguing that PennDOT received the full economic benefit of its bargain, so the Government could not prove they schemed to defraud PennDOT of money or property. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected this argument, affirming the convictions and deepening the division over the validity of a federal fraud conviction when the defendant did not seek to cause the victim net pecuniary loss.The Supreme Court of the United States held that a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. The Court explained that the text of the wire fraud statute does not mention economic loss and that the common law did not establish a general rule requiring economic loss in all fraud cases. The Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision, concluding that the fraudulent-inducement theory is consistent with both the text of the statute and the Court’s precedent. View "Kousisis v. United States" on Justia Law

Douglas Horn, a commercial truck driver, purchased and consumed a CBD tincture called "Dixie X," marketed as THC-free by Medical Marijuana, Inc. After a random drug test by his employer detected THC in his system, Horn was fired for refusing to participate in a substance abuse program. Horn subsequently sued Medical Marijuana under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that the company's false advertising led to his job loss.The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Medical Marijuana, reasoning that Horn's job loss was a consequence of a personal injury (ingesting THC), and thus not recoverable under RICO, which only allows recovery for business or property injuries. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Horn's job loss constituted an injury to his business under RICO, rejecting the "antecedent-personal-injury bar" that precludes recovery for business or property losses derived from personal injuries.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to determine whether civil RICO categorically bars recovery for business or property losses that derive from a personal injury. The Court held that under civil RICO, a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury. The Court emphasized that the statute's language allows recovery for business or property harms without excluding those that result from personal injuries. The judgment of the Second Circuit was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn" on Justia Law

In 1997, Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese at an Oklahoma hotel managed by Richard Glossip. Sneed claimed Glossip orchestrated the murder to steal Van Treese's money. Glossip denied involvement but was convicted and sentenced to death based on Sneed's testimony. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned the initial conviction due to ineffective defense counsel but upheld a second conviction despite inconsistencies in Sneed's testimony and new evidence suggesting prosecutorial misconduct.The OCCA initially reversed Glossip's conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel but affirmed his second conviction, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Sneed's testimony. Glossip's subsequent habeas petitions were unsuccessful. An independent investigation commissioned by Oklahoma legislators raised doubts about the conviction, revealing prosecutorial misconduct, including the destruction of evidence and false portrayal of Sneed. The State disclosed previously withheld documents, including evidence of Sneed's bipolar disorder and false testimony about his lithium prescription.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case, focusing on whether the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. The Court found that the prosecution knowingly allowed Sneed to falsely testify about his lithium prescription and failed to correct it. This false testimony was material, as Sneed's credibility was crucial to Glossip's conviction. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct the false testimony violated Glossip's due process rights, warranting a new trial. The judgment of the OCCA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Glossip v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Brenda Andrew was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence about her sex life and personal failings, which was later conceded to be irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal habeas petition that this evidence was so prejudicial it violated the Due Process Clause.The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) upheld her conviction, finding some of the evidence about her extramarital affairs relevant but acknowledging that much of the other evidence was irrelevant. Despite this, the OCCA deemed the errors harmless. Two judges dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence undermined the fairness of the trial.In federal court, the District Court denied relief, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that Andrew failed to cite clearly established federal law. The Tenth Circuit majority acknowledged the precedent set by Payne v. Tennessee but dismissed it as a pronouncement rather than a holding. Judge Bacharach dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence deprived Andrew of a fair trial.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the Tenth Circuit erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that Payne established that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair. The Court vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the trial court's admission of irrelevant evidence was so prejudicial as to render Andrew's trial fundamentally unfair. View "Andrew v. White" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the U.S., pleaded no contest in a California court under a statute criminalizing “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator,” defining “minor” as “a person under the age of 18.” He was ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(3), as an “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony,” including “sexual abuse of a minor.” The Supreme Court reversed. Under the categorical approach employed to determine whether an alien’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony, the court asks whether the state statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits within the "generic" federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. Petitioner’s state conviction would be an “aggravated felony” only if the least of the acts criminalized by the state statute falls within the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor, regardless of the actual facts of the case. The least of the acts criminalized by the California law would be consensual sexual intercourse between a victim who is almost 18 and a perpetrator who just turned 21. The generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires that the victim be younger than 16 and a significant majority of state criminal codes set the age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses predicated exclusively on the age of the participants. View "Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions" on Justia Law

After agents found child pornography on petitioner’s computer, he pleaded guilty to possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct (18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2)), an offense requiring restitution to the victim. The district court imposed a prison sentence and acknowledged that restitution was mandatory but deferred determination of the amount. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Months later, the court entered an amended judgment, ordering petitioner to pay restitution to one victim. Petitioner did not file a second notice of appeal, but challenged the restitution amount before the Eleventh Circuit, which held that he had forfeited any such challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed. A defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order. If he fails to do so and the government objects, he may not challenge the restitution order on appeal. Both 18 U.S.C. 3742(a), governing criminal appeals, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a)(1) contemplate that a defendant will file a notice of appeal after the court has decided the issue sought to be appealed. The requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule, which is “unalterable” if raised properly by the party asserting its violation. Deferred restitution cases involve two appealable judgments, not one; the notice of appeal did not “spring forward” to become effective on the date the court entered its amended restitution judgment. Even if the court’s acknowledgment in the initial judgment that restitution was mandatory could qualify as a “sentence” that the court “announced” under Rule 4(b)(2), petitioner has never disputed that restitution is mandatory. A court of appeals may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal. View "Manrique v. United States" on Justia Law

Nelson, convicted of felonies and misdemeanors arising from the alleged abuse of her children, was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $8,192.50 in court costs, fees, and restitution. Nelson’s conviction was reversed; on retrial, she was acquitted. Madden was also convicted by a Colorado jury. The court imposed a prison sentence and ordered him to pay $4,413.00 in costs, fees, and restitution. Madden’s convictions were reversed and vacated; the state did not appeal or retry the case. The Colorado Department of Corrections withheld $702.10 from Nelson’s inmate account between her conviction and acquittal. Madden paid the state $1,977.75 after his conviction. Once their convictions were invalidated, they sought refunds. The Colorado Supreme Court reasoned that Colorado’s Exoneration Act provided the exclusive authority for refunds and that neither petitioner had filed a claim under that Act; the court also upheld the constitutionality of the Act, which permits Colorado to retain conviction-related assessments until the prevailing defendant institutes a discrete civil proceeding and proves her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court reversed. The Act’s scheme violates the guarantee of due process. Petitioners have an obvious interest in regaining the money. The state may not retain these funds simply because their convictions were in place when the funds were taken; once the convictions were erased, the presumption of innocence was restored. Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, guilty enough for monetary exactions. Colorado’s scheme creates an unacceptable risk of the erroneous deprivation of defendants’ property, conditioning refunds on proof of innocence by clear and convincing evidence, while defendants in petitioners’ position are presumed innocent. When the amount sought is not large, the cost of pursuing a claim under the Act would be prohibitive. Colorado has no equitable interest in withholding petitioners’ money. View "Nelson v. Colorado" on Justia Law