Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appeals his conviction on three counts of a four-count indictment for child abuse. Each count concerns a different child. On appeal defendant argues that (1) the district court plainly erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction for Count I; (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance.Conducting a plain error review, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction to the jury regarding Count I. The government presented evidence of three separate incidents in a single count of aggravated child abuse. The court reasoned that the trial court should view “the defendant’s acts . . . in a commonsense manner, taking into account whether the acts occurred in a separate time frame or separate identifying place.” State v. White Face, 857 N.W.2d 387 (S.D. 2014).Here, no evidence suggested “a pattern of continuous abuse”; instead, it described three “discrete incidents.” The district court erred by not providing the jury with a special unanimity instruction requiring it to agree on the specific act supporting the conviction or find that defendant had committed all three acts. The plain error prejudiced defendant. The court vacated the Count I conviction and affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Tyson Keepseagle" on Justia Law

Officers conducted a traffic stop of a car in which the defendant was the passenger. The officers stated they were concerned the defendant was carrying something, so they handcuffed him. Defendant denied carrying anything but told officers they could check, at which point they found a stun gun and a lighter.A federal grand jury indicted the defendant on three counts, and he moved to suppress the evidence officers discovered during the search. He then pled guilty to the charges. Defendant presented mitigation evidence and asked the district court to impose the minimum sentence; however, they sentenced him to 211 months of imprisonment.Defendant argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, the officers placed him under de factor arrest without probable cause, and the district court gave too much weight to aggravating factors when sentencing him. First, the circuit court concluded that the totality of the circumstances justified the officer’s search. Next, the circuit court found that the officers’ reasonable belief that the defendant was carrying weapons allowed them to handcuff him without resulting in a de facto arrest. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by the sentencing defendant at the bottom of the guidelines range.. View "United States v. Tanner Halverson-Weese" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to federal drug charges. The district court determined that defendant had a category VI criminal history and applied a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. While considering the statutory sentencing factors, the district court mistakenly stated defendant shot a gun in the air during a prior offense. Defendant was sentenced with a special condition requiring him to undergo substance abuse treatment.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court’s finding regarding the reckless endangerment enhancement was not erroneous. Reasoning that the defendant's actions, such as speeding, running red lights, and unsafe lane changing, amounted to reckless endangerment. Next, the circuit court found that the district court committed a procedural error by linking an erroneous fact with another uncontested conviction. However, the defendant failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights because there was not a reasonable probability that, but for the erroneous fact, the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence. Further, the circuit court concluded the district court’s bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence of 92 months was not substantively unreasonable. Finally, while medication compliance requirements may infringe on constitutional liberty interests, whether a medical professional will prescribe medication or treatment is speculative and does not unconstitutionally infringe on the defendant's liberty interests. View "United States v. Leprese Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to murdering his cousin and her husband. At sentencing, the defendant was represented by two attorneys with experience handling capital cases. The jury returned a sentence of death for each murder, finding seven aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant then petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254, raising twenty-eight claims, including a claim that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his adjustment to incarceration.The Eighth Circuit reviewed whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is substantial under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Martinez requires a defendant to show that his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel has “some merit.” The circuit court agreed with the defendant that the district court erred by treating the substantiality standard as different from the certificate-of-appealability standard. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim was insubstantial even under the correct standard. The circuit court found that no reasonable jurist could believe that or find it debatable whether either prong of the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim is met. Thus, the defendant cannot show cause for his failure to raise the claim in state postconviction proceedings. View "Brian Dorsey v. David Vandergriff" on Justia Law

Frustrated with then-President Donald Trump, the defendant obtained his parents' .40 caliber pistol and headed to Washington, D.C. Defendant’s plan was to put himself in a position where he could shoot President Trump. However, the defendant had no concrete plans. On his way, the defendant began to have second thoughts. He called his father and eventually turned around.The district court deferred ruling on the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal pending the jury’s verdict. However, upon the jury finding the defendant guilty, the district court explained that, although it was a close call, the evidence was sufficient.While the Eighth Circuit found aspects of the case troubling, the court is “without authority to reverse a conviction as long as there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably” find the defendant guilty. Here, the evidence was sufficient that the defendant’s actions constituted a true threat. View "United States v. Timothy Cessor" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle. The sentencing guidelines provided a base range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. However, the prosecution sought an upward variance based on an uncharged shooting involving Defendant.The day before Defendant committed the crimes for which he was charged, he became frustrated after an altercation in a convenience store, fired a gun in the direction of two men outside the store, and hit and killed a child. The next day, Defendant and his aunt conspired to embezzle money from Defendant’s employer so he could leave town. After considering the shooting as well as Defendant’s intellectual disability, the district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. Although the district court did not provide an in-depth discussion of Defendant’s intellectual disability, the court did not commit procedural error. The court also held that Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the facts. The district court did not err in heavily relying on the uncharged shooting to vary upward. Nor did the court err in failing to consider Defendant’s intellectual disability. View "United States v. Malik Ross" on Justia Law

Defendant and nine others were charged with conspiring to sell methamphetamine between 2015 and 2019. The other nine co-defendants all pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government in Defendant's case. The prosecution sought admission of controlled buy in which Defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant several months before the conspiracy began. The district court admitted the transaction with a limiting instruction. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the judge sentenced him to 130 months incarceration.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the co-conspirators' statements against Defendant were admissible because the evidence “stemmed from reasonably foreseeable buys and aided in proving the extent of the conspiracy.” The court also found that evidence of the controlled buy was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction and that the district court did not commit any error when calculating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Travis Ferguson" on Justia Law

After a civilian reported a vehicle traveling the wrong way on the highway, a state trooper located Defendant driving a vehicle matching the description. The trooper, who had a K9 unit with him, initiated a traffic stop after noticing the vehicle’s tint appeared to violate state law. During the stop, the trooper discovered the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. While the trooper was waiting for backup, he asked Defendant to consent to a K9 search of the vehicle. The defendant declined; however, relying on highway patrol protocol, the trooper proceeded with the K9 search. The K9 unit indicated the presence of narcotics, prompting the trooper to search the vehicle, where he discovered cocaine, methamphetamine and a firearm. A subsequent inventory search of the vehicle revealed two additional handguns and a small amount of methamphetamine. Several days later, the trooper performed a second inventory search, locating 459 grams of methamphetamine.The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress based on the prolonged nature of the initial traffic stop and various departures from highway patrol policy in conducting the inventory search.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended due to the discovery of narcotics and a firearm. The court also held that the trooper substantially complied with departmental policy in conducting the inventory searches. Finally, the court rejected Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on claims the prosecutor violated the prohibition against mentioning the defendant’s failure to testify. View "United States v. Jose Perez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor and interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; there was no error in requiring defendant to submit to polygraph tests; the award of restitution was proper under the Abolish Human Trafficking Act; and there was no abuse of discretion in determining the amount of restitution. View "United States v. Kempter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and imposition of a three year prison sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not impermissibly lengthened defendant's sentence so he could participate in a sex offender treatment program, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335 (2011). In this case, the district court based its sentencing decision on the danger defendant posed to children in the community and the fact that his continued violations showed he was not amenable to supervision. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not err in imposing the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law