Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court entered a preliminary injunction concerning four provisions of Arizona S. B. 1070, enacted in 2010: Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; 5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in Arizona; 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed any offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.; and 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to attempt, in some circumstances, to verify immigration status. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 preempted. Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, in which Congress has left no room for even complementary state laws. Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty is an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or employ unauthorized workers, 8 U. S. C. 1324a(a)(1)(A),(a)(2); requires employers to verify prospective employees' status; and imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, but only imposes civil penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment. Congress decided against criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. Section 6 creates an obstacle to federal law by attempting to provide state officers with additional arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the federal government. Generally, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the U.S. It was improper to enjoin section 2(B) before state courts construed it and without some showing that its enforcement actually conflicts with federal law. The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. It is not clear yet that 2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay release of detainees for no reason other than to verify immigration status. That would raise constitutional concerns and would disrupt the federal framework, but the section could be read to avoid these concerns.

Defendants, convicted of selling crack cocaine in 2007 and 2008, were not sentenced until 2010, after amendment of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act eliminated a 100-to-1 disparity between the amounts of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger mandatory minimum sentences. The Fair Sentencing Act, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii), effective August 3, 2010, reduced the disparity to 18-to-1, lowering the mandatory minimums applicable to many crack offenders, by increasing the amount of crack needed to trigger the 5-year minimum from 5 to 28 grams and the amount for the 10-year minimum from 50 to 280 grams, while leaving the powder cocaine amounts intact. District judges held that the amendments did not apply to those whose offenses were committed before the effective date. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated in a 5-4 decision. The new, lower mandatory minimums apply to the post-Act sentencing of pre-Act offenders. Congress intended the more lenient penalties to apply to offenders who committed crimes before August 3, 2010, but were sentenced after that date. Not to apply the Fair Sentencing Act would preserve a disproportionate status quo and make matters worse by creating new anomalies.

The company was convicted of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for knowingly storing liquid mercury without a permit "on or about September 19, 2002 to October 19, 2004." Violations are punishable by a fine of not more than $50,000 per day, 42 U.S.C. 6928(d). The probation office calculated a maximum fine of $38.1 million, based on 762 days. The company argued that any fine greater than $50,000 would be unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, which held that the Sixth Amendment requires that any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases maximum punishment be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court held that Apprendi applies to criminal fines, but concluded that the jury found a 762-day violation and imposed a fine of $6 million and a community service obligation of $12 million. The First Circuit affirmed on the ground that Apprendi does not apply to criminal fines. The Supreme Court reversed. Apprendi applies to criminal fines. The "core concern, to reserve to the jury determination of facts that warrant punishment for a specific statutory offense, applies whether the sentence is a criminal fine or imprisonment or death. Dissenters argued that facts relevant to a fine’s amount typically quantify the harm and do not define a separate set of acts for punishment. The majority rejected the assumption that, in determining maximum punishment, there is a constitutionally significant difference between a fact that is an "element" and one that is a "sentencing factor."

In petitioner's bench trial for rape, the prosecution called an expert who testified that a DNA profile produced by an outside lab matched a profile produced by the state police lab using a sample of petitioner's blood. At issue was whether Crawford v. Washington precluded the expert witness from testifying in a manner that had long been allowed under the law of evidence. Specifically, did Crawford bar an expert from expressing an opinion based on facts about a case that have been made known to the expert but about which the expert was not competent to testify. Also at issue was whether Crawford substantially impeded the ability of prosecutors to introduce DNA evidence and thus could effectively relegate the prosecution in some cases to reliance on older, less reliable forms of proof. The Court concluded that this form of expert testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the provision had no application to out-of-court statements that were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, the Court concluded that the expert's testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment. As a second, independent basis for the Court's decision, even if the report produced by the outside lab had been admitted into evidence, there would have been no Confrontation Clause violation.

This case arose when respondent brought an action against petitioners, two Secret Service agents, and others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, claiming that he was arrested and searched without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the arrest violated the First Amendment because it was made in retaliation for respondent's criticism of Vice President Cheney. At issue was whether two federal law enforcement agents were immune from suit for allegedly arresting a suspect in retaliation for his political speech, when the agents had probable cause to arrest the suspect for committing a federal crime. The Court held that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of respondent's arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation.

This case arose when defendant was charged with capital murder for the death of a one-year-old. Before the jury concluded deliberations, it reported that it was unanimous against guilt on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder, was deadlocked on manslaughter, and had not voted on negligent homicide. The trial court told the jury to continue to deliberate. The jury did so but still could not reach a verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial. All agreed that defendant could be retried on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide. At issue was whether defendant could also be retried on charges of capital and first-degree murder. The Court concluded that the jury in this case did not convict defendant of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either. When the jury was unable to return a verdict, the trial court properly declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. As a consequence, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

In 1987, petitioner was convicted of murder and other crimes by a Colorado court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in 2008. After receiving the petition, the district court asked the State if it planned to argue that the petition was untimely. In response, the State twice informed the district court that it would "not challenge, but [was] not conceding," the timeliness of the petition. Thereafter, the district court ordered the parties to brief both the merits and the timeliness of the petition. At issue was the authority of a federal court to raise, on its own motion, a statute of limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition. The Court held that courts of appeal, like district courts, have the authority - though not the obligation - to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases. The Tenth Circuit abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition as untimely. In the district court, the State was well aware of the statute of limitations defense available to it, and of the arguments that could be made in support of that defense. Yet, the State twice informed the district court that it would "challenge" the timeliness of the petition. In doing so, the State deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense. In light of that waiver, the Tenth Circuit should have followed the district court's lead and decided the merits of the petition. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded.

Respondent, the chief investigator for a district attorney's office, testified at grand jury proceedings that resulted in petitioner's indictment. After the indictments were dismissed, petitioner brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that respondent had conspired to present and did present false testimony to the grand jury. The district court denied respondent's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that respondent had absolute immunity from a section 1983 claim based on his grand jury testimony. The Court affirmed and held that a witness in a grand jury proceeding was entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under section 1983 as a witness who testified at trial.

Petitioner filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in the district court against government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses could not be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The district court granted him summary judgment, ruling that "strip-searching" nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit Reversed. The Court affirmed and concluded that the search procedure at the county jails struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions, and thus the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments did not require adoption of the framework and rules petitioner proposed.

When petitioner was indicted in a Texas court on drug charges, the State also moved to revoke the probation term that he was then serving for another drug offense. At about the same time, petitioner pleaded guilty to federal drug charges. At issue was whether a district court, in sentencing a defendant for a federal offense, had authority to order that the federal sentence be consecutive to an anticipated state sentence that had not yet been imposed. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 3584(a), addressed the concurrent-vs.-consecutive decision, but not the situation here, since the District Court did not impose "multiple terms of imprisonment... at the same time," and petitioner was not "already subject to" the state sentence at issue. This did not mean that the District Court lacked authority to act as it did and that the Bureau of Prisons was to make the concurrent-vs.-consecutive decision after the federal sentence had been imposed. It was more natural to read section 3584(a) as leaving room for the exercise of judicial discretion in situations not covered than it was to read section 3621(b) as giving the Bureau what amounted to sentencing authority. Because it was within the District Court's discretion to order that petitioner's sentence run consecutively to his anticipated state sentence in the probation revocation proceeding; and because the state court's subsequent decision to make that sentence concurrent with its other sentence did not establish that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence; the Court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.