Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State of South Dakota charged Ronald Lee Neels with multiple sex-related offenses, including rape, sexual contact, and incest, for the sexual abuse of his adopted daughter over a 14-year period. During the trial, the prosecutor made an opening statement that asked the jury to imagine themselves in the victim's position, which is considered a "Golden Rule" argument and is generally condemned. Neels did not object to this statement at the time. Following his conviction, Neels filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to the prosecutor's opening statement.The South Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed Neels's conviction on direct appeal, stating that the issues raised were without merit. Neels then filed a state habeas corpus petition, which was denied on the grounds of res judicata, as the court found that the issue of prejudice had already been decided on direct appeal. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the same standard of prejudice applied in both plain error review and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Neels subsequently filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted the petition, concluding that Neels suffered prejudice from his attorneys' failure to object to the prosecutor's opening statement, despite acknowledging the overwhelming evidence of Neels's guilt. The court reasoned that the magnitude of the prosecutorial misconduct required vacating the conviction to ensure a fair trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Neels did not suffer Strickland prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's opening statement, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The court emphasized that the jury instructions and the strength of the evidence against Neels mitigated any potential prejudice from the prosecutor's improper remarks. View "Neels v. Fluke" on Justia Law

On December 26, 2019, Officers Rozeboom and Malone responded to a shoplifting report at Dick’s Sporting Goods in Papillion, Nebraska. The suspects were described as a black male and black female in a silver four-door sedan. Malone spotted a similar vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. Storrs, a black male, was driving, and Smith, a white female, was the passenger. Despite the discrepancy in the suspect description, the officers detained Storrs and Smith. During the encounter, Storrs and Smith were uncooperative, leading to their arrest and a search of their vehicle, which allegedly smelled of marijuana.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. The court determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause for the continued detention and search based on the alleged odor of marijuana. The court also found no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, agreeing that the officers had probable cause to arrest Storrs and Smith for obstructing a peace officer and that there was no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claim of unlawful continued detention, finding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion once they saw Smith was white. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact regarding the alleged odor of marijuana, precluding summary judgment on the illegal search claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Storrs v. Rozeboom" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hunt arrived at the Lee County Courthouse to testify in a criminal case. Directed outside due to courtroom scheduling, Hunt re-entered and sat on a staircase. Officer Dale Acosta confronted Hunt, leading to a heated exchange. Despite Hunt's explanation of his courthouse business, Acosta arrested him for obstruction, claiming Hunt disrupted the county tax office.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed most of Hunt's claims but allowed his Fourth Amendment claim against Acosta, a failure to train or supervise claim against Mayor Jimmy Williams and Chief of Police Martin Wilson, and a Monell claim against the City of Marianna. The court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta and qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson. Acosta, Williams, and Wilson appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta's initial stop of Hunt, as Acosta acted under a judge's directive. However, the court affirmed the denial of quasi-judicial and qualified immunity for Acosta's arrest of Hunt, finding no probable cause for obstruction. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson, ruling that Hunt failed to show a pattern of unconstitutional acts by Acosta that would have put them on notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Hunt v. Acosta" on Justia Law

Dalonte Foard and his uncle, Thomas Holbert, picked up two foster youths, M.D. and M.J., from their foster home. M.D. and M.J. were taken to a motel where Holbert took provocative photos of them to include in online prostitution advertisements. Holbert attempted to set up the minors with sex buyers but was unsuccessful. Eventually, M.D. left, leaving M.J. at the motel with Foard and his girlfriend, Tashian Hickman. Foard pressured M.J. to engage in sex acts and later created an online prostitution advertisement for her. A sex buyer, Michael Blue, paid for sex acts with M.J., and Foard took a portion of the money. M.J. was later returned to her foster home, and her foster mother called the police.A grand jury indicted Foard for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking and sex trafficking of M.J. and M.D. The jury found Foard guilty of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking and sex trafficking of M.J. but acquitted him of sex trafficking M.D. The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska sentenced Foard to 45 years of imprisonment followed by lifetime supervision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Foard raised several challenges, including issues with jury instructions, admission of out-of-court statements, denial of his motion for acquittal, sentencing adjustments, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court found that the jury instructions permissibly narrowed the indictment, the out-of-court statements were admissible under the co-conspirator exclusion to hearsay, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancements for undue influence of a minor, use of electronic communications, vulnerable victim, and obstruction of justice. The court found no error in the district court's denial of a mitigating role reduction and concluded that the 45-year sentence was substantively reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "U.S. v. Foard" on Justia Law

Colton Bagola was convicted of first-degree murder and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence after shooting Sloane Bull Bear in the back of the head at a gathering in Pine Ridge, South Dakota. Witnesses testified that Bagola shot Bull Bear from approximately one inch away. Following the incident, Bagola and others fled the scene, and Bull Bear's body was found in the exterior doorway. Bagola was indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree murder and tampering with evidence. The district court severed the conspiracy count and granted a motion for acquittal on the tampering charge. The jury convicted Bagola of first-degree murder and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota handled the initial trial. After the jury's guilty verdict, Bagola filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. Bagola then appealed his conviction, raising several challenges, including the admission of expert testimony, the adequacy of jury instructions regarding his "Indian" status, the sufficiency of evidence for premeditated first-degree murder, and whether premeditated first-degree murder qualifies as a crime of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that any error in admitting expert testimony was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence against Bagola. The court also determined that the district court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the "Indian" status element did not affect Bagola's substantial rights, given the uncontroverted evidence of his tribal membership. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of premeditation. Finally, the court ruled that premeditated first-degree murder is categorically a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Eighth Circuit affirmed Bagola's convictions. View "United States v. Bagola" on Justia Law

Jackie Davidson was convicted of assaulting federal officers with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence after he shot at an SUV, mistakenly believing it was driven by a man named Omar, who Davidson suspected of criminal activities. The SUV was actually driven by federal law enforcement officers. Davidson fired at the vehicle after it passed him, thinking he was in imminent danger.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas barred Davidson from arguing self-defense at trial, concluding that he did not act out of a reasonable belief of imminent harm. The court also ruled that under United States v. Feola, the government did not need to prove that Davidson knew his victims were federal officers. At trial, the jury found Davidson guilty of assaulting federal officers and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, but acquitted him of other charges. Davidson was sentenced to 120 months and 1 day in prison and 3 years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Davidson's appeal, which raised three arguments: the district court erred in prohibiting his self-defense claim, the government needed to prove he knew his victims were federal officers, and the jury instructions were flawed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that Davidson did not meet the burden of production for a self-defense claim, Feola was still binding precedent, and the jury instructions were adequate. The court concluded that Davidson's conviction should be upheld. View "United States v. Davidson" on Justia Law

Kevin Bordeaux pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and assaulting, resisting, and impeding a federal officer. On July 6, 2022, Bordeaux shot his girlfriend, Megan Hawk, in the hip and fled the scene. Two days later, he led law enforcement on a high-speed chase, during which he and an accomplice fired at officers. Bordeaux was subsequently captured and indicted on multiple charges.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota sentenced Bordeaux based on an offense level of 29 and a Criminal History Category of III, resulting in a Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. This calculation was based on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which initially included a five-level enhancement for discharging a firearm. Bordeaux objected to the addition of two criminal history points, which the court sustained, reducing his Criminal History Category from IV to III. However, the court mistakenly maintained the offense level at 29 instead of 28, leading to the incorrect Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that the district court had miscalculated the Guidelines range, but argued that the error did not prejudice Bordeaux. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, noting that the correct Guidelines range should have been 97 to 121 months. The court found that the miscalculation affected Bordeaux’s substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings, as there was a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence within the correct range. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing under the correct Guidelines range. View "United States v. Bordeaux" on Justia Law

Two men, Bruce Sanford and Houston Simmons, were found in a car outside a nightclub in Waterloo, Iowa. A nightclub owner reported to the police that the men were smoking and drinking in the car. When officers arrived, they smelled marijuana and subsequently searched the car, finding marijuana, cash, and a handgun. Both men were charged with possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony.At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, both Sanford and Simmons filed motions to suppress the evidence, arguing they were unlawfully seized when the officers blocked their car. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the car was not completely blocked and could have moved. The court concluded that the men were not unlawfully seized before the officers smelled marijuana and denied the motions to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no clear error in the lower court’s factual determinations. The appellate court agreed that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have felt free to leave, despite the presence of armed officers and flashing lights. The court held that the positioning of the squad cars did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and upheld the denial of the motions to suppress. View "United States v. Sanford" on Justia Law

Darius Sledge and Baquan Sledge were involved in a large-scale drug distribution conspiracy in North Dakota, targeting several Indian Reservations. They transported thousands of oxycodone pills from Michigan and recruited local residents as sub-distributors. Despite being arrested, Baquan continued his involvement from jail. Both were charged with multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, money laundering, and maintaining drug-involved premises. A jury found Baquan guilty on all counts and Darius on all but one.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Baquan's motion to be returned to North Dakota from a Colorado facility, deeming it moot as he had already been returned. The court also denied Darius and Baquan's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror bias, finding no dishonesty in juror responses during voir dire. Both were sentenced to 360 months for the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) count and 240 months for other counts, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It reversed Darius’s CCE conviction due to an error in jury instructions, specifically the lack of a unanimity instruction regarding the predicate felonies. The court found this error affected Darius’s substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings. The court remanded for a new trial on this count and remanded Baquan’s drug conspiracy conviction to the district court to vacate the lesser-included offense. The court affirmed the judgments in all other respects, including the denial of a new trial based on juror bias and the handling of Baquan’s pre-trial detention location. View "United States v. Sledge" on Justia Law

Kendra Kingsbury, an FBI Intelligence Analyst with Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) security clearance, pled guilty to two counts of willful retention of national defense information. During her employment, she improperly retained classified documents at her home, which were discovered during an FBI investigation. The investigation revealed that Kingsbury had approximately 20,000 documents, including 386 classified ones, some related to counterterrorism. Additionally, phone records indicated calls to and from individuals involved in counterterrorism investigations, which Kingsbury denied making.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust, increasing her advisory Guidelines range to 46-57 months of imprisonment. Kingsbury was sentenced to 46 months. She appealed the enhancement, arguing it was already included in her base offense level.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the enhancement for plain error, as Kingsbury did not object at sentencing. The court found that the enhancement was appropriate because Kingsbury’s position of trust significantly facilitated the commission of the offense. The court rejected her argument that the enhancement was subsumed within the base offense level, noting that another FBI employee without her security clearance could have committed the same crime without the enhancement. Therefore, the court concluded that the enhancement was not duplicative of her base offense level.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement and upheld Kingsbury’s 46-month sentence. View "United States v. Kingsbury" on Justia Law