Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to deal heroin and other drugs. The court held that defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the government's belated disclosure of a handwritten letter tending to impeach a government witness, and thus his Brady claim failed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for severance; the indictment's allegation that defendant and his codefendant conspired to distribute drugs made joinder of their trials proper; and refusing to disclose the names of his customers disqualified defendant from taking advantage of the safety valve. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for conspiracy to commit bank robbery by intimidation. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendants agreed to rob by intimidation. In this case, the court considered the record as a whole, including defendants' demands and the bank tellers' fear. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed Defendants Cooper and Bryant's appeal of their convictions and sentences for theft of public money and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that Cooper's statements could be used at trial where the evidence showed that Cooper's statements were given freely and voluntarily; a special agent's testimony did not meaningfully prejudice the defense; the district court did not err by denying Cooper's motion for a mistrial during the government's rebuttal where the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence applicable to Cooper, and the occasional inadvertent references to "these defendants" when discussing acts not attributable to Cooper were quickly remedied; and the district court's calculation of the restitution amount was appropriate. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for conspiring to traffic wholesale quantities of cocaine into the United States. The court found no grounds for reversal, holding that the evidence presented at trial did not materially diverge from the charges contained in the indictment. Furthermore, even if the district court erred by rejecting defendants' request for a multiple conspiracies jury instruction, defendants failed to show that the error substantially prejudiced them. View "United States v. Lorenzana-Cordon" on Justia Law

After apprehension and extradition to the United States, defendants were convicted each on four counts: two counts under 18 U.S.C. 1114, which criminalizes the killing of an officer or employee of the United States; one count under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for using a firearm while committing a crime of violence; and one count under 18 U.S.C. 1116, which criminalizes the killing of certain persons protected under international law. On appeal, defendants argued that sections 1114 and 924(c) do not apply extraterritorially.The DC Circuit held that section 1114, which has a purely domestic scope, does not apply extraterritorially. However, the court held that section 924(c) can apply to conduct overseas. Therefore, the court vacated defendants' convictions under section 114 and remanded for a limited resentencing. View "United States v. Garcia Sota" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that defendant's prior bank robbery convictions were crimes of violence and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for post-conviction relief. The court need not reach defendant's constitutional objection, because in 2003, when he was sentenced, a prior conviction could be a crime of violence under either the residual clause or the Guidelines' independent elements clause, which defines a crime of violence as one that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court explained that the federal bank robbery statute requires proof that a defendant took property by force and violence, or by intimidation. In order to satisfy this requirement, defendant must have at least knowingly threatened someone with physical force (or have attempted to do so), which squarely placed the offense within the Guidelines' elements clause. View "United States v. Carr" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for six counts of sex trafficking and related crimes against minors, rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the existing record left no doubt that counsel's failure to challenge the qualifications of an expert witness was not ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, an objection to the expert's qualifications would have been meritless under the applicable legal standard; the expert's curriculum vitae listed extensive medical training in pediatrics, decades of on-the-job experience, and specialized knowledge reflected in peer-reviewed publications, other publications and expert reports, and dozens of lectures on the dynamics of child sex trafficking and victimization; and the court's cases clearly supported qualifying an expert witness on these facts. Furthermore, counsel's decision to press the defense by challenging the expert on three grounds other than qualifications fell within the reasonable range of professional assistance. View "United States v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant claimed that his trial and appellate counsel failed to properly argue or advance a claim that his Speedy Trial Act (STA) rights were violated. The court assumed without deciding that the STA was violated, and that the trial and appellate counsel were deficient in failing to properly argue or advance that violation.The court held that failure to obtain a dismissal without prejudice under the STA does not constitute Strickland prejudice. Highlighting that each of the explicit statutory factors weighs in favor of a dismissal without prejudice, the court held that defendant has not shown that he suffered any trial or non-trial prejudice sufficient to tip the scale in favor of a dismissal with prejudice. View "United States v. McLendon" on Justia Law

After defendant was sentenced for possession of a heroin mixture exceeding two kilograms based on the then-applicable statutory minimum contained in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), Congress enacted the First Step Act, narrowing the range of past offenses that trigger section 841(b)(1)(A)'s mandatory minimum.The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence and held that a reduced prison term applies only to a defendant whose sentence had not been "imposed" as of the Act's enactment date. Therefore, the court rejected defendant's argument that, because his case was still pending on direct review when the Act was enacted, he should receive the benefit of the decreased term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Roger Stone and members of his family petitioned for a writ of mandamus vacating the district court's orders modifying his conditions of release. Stone, a political consultant, was indicted on one count of obstruction of proceedings, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering. Stone's charges stemmed from allegations that he obstructed investigations by Congress and the FBI into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.The DC Circuit dismissed the petition, holding that Stone and his family members failed to avail themselves of adequate alternative remedies and thus were not entitled to mandamus relief. The court held that Stone could have appealed under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c), which expressly provides for judicial review of a detention order; Stone could have challenged the conditional release orders by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days after their entry, but failed to do so; and Stone's family members may move the district court to reconsider or modify the conditions of release and, if unsuccessful, appeal the denial of that motion. View "In re: Roger Stone, Jr." on Justia Law