Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Sam, aged 16, walked with friends to Walmart, where they split up. The group left the store; Stag, stole a jacket. At 9:49 p.m., Officer Richard responded to the reported theft, encountered Sam’s group, and activated his emergency lights. Sam’s group scattered. Another officer threatened to release a dog if they didn’t stop. Sam lay face down on the ground, with his hands on the back of his head. Sam stated in deposition that Richard slapped Sam's face, kneed him, handcuffed him, and shoved him against a car. The slap did not break the skin, but a scrape drew blood from Sam’s hip. Richard agreed that Sam did not resist, but denied using force. Another officer handcuffed Stag. Both were placed in Richard’s patrol car. Richard returned to Walmart at 10:03 p.m. A security guard identified Stag as the thief. At 10:45 p.m., Richard drove the boys to the police station. Sam’s mother picked him up. Sam did not visit a doctor that night. One of Sam’s friends stated in deposition that Sam “looked like he got hit” and “his face was a little red and bruised.” Medical records generated about six weeks later indicate that Sam complained of lingering hip pain. The district court dismissed Sam’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part. Sam’s evidence of excessive force is sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion. The court affirmed rejection of an unjustified detention claim. View "Sam v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated appellee's 80 month sentence and remanded for resentencing. In this case, appellee pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana. The court held that a motion by the government was required for the district court to depart below the minimum term of imprisonment established by Congress for the drug offense appellee committed. Therefore, it was error for the district court to sua sponte depart from the minimum. View "United States v. Sealed Appellee" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in a state court of two murders and subsequently acquitted of the second murder. As to the second murder, the district court granted habeas relief after concluding that material evidence, favorable to petitioner, had been withheld prior to trial; and the state courts' contrary decisions had unreasonably applied clearly-established federal law, as proscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that petitioner established actual innocence to overcome the statute of limitations for his application where he presented substantial exculpatory evidence related to both murders; the State withheld favorable, material evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and the district court correctly applied AEDPA in concluding that, in denying Floyd post-conviction relief in state court, those courts unreasonably applied clearly-established federal law. View "Floyd v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of illegal reentry. The court held that any challenged statements from the prosecutor were not improper and, moreover, they did not affect defendant's substantial rights; under consistent circuit precedent, the warrant of removal was properly admitted under the public records exception pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8); and there was no evidence suppressed for Brady v. Maryland purposes. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress several bundles of cocaine discovered and seized after he consented to the search of his vehicle. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's consent to the search was voluntary where the law enforcement agent did not use coercive police procedures to make defendant consent to the search of his vehicle. View "United States v. Perales" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a police officer and sentenced to death, argued that he was entitled to federal habeas relief on his claim that the press coverage of the crime and the presence of uniformed police officers in the gallery during his trial created an inherently prejudicial atmosphere that violated his right to a fair trial. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) barred consideration of the media reports included in petitioner's federal petition, and the district court properly declined to consider them. The court also held that petitioner's fair trial claim did not warrant habeas relief. The court explained that other courts have declined to find the mere presence of officers in a courtroom sufficient to support inherent prejudice, and the record before the court did not suggest the police presence intimidated the jury or disrupted the factfinding process in any way. Furthermore, even assuming that section 2254(e)(2) did not bar this court's consideration of the media-related evidence presented for the first time in petitioner's federal habeas petition, his fair trial claim still failed. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, nor did it err in resting its conclusion on the evidence presented in the federal habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on the merits. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of healthcare fraud and violating the Anti-Kickback Statute. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute because the jury could have found that defendant was aware of the nature and purpose of the kickback payments he made to a codefendant. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient underlying defendant's healthcare fraud convictions where the facts taken together supported the jury's determination that defendant knew of the clinic's healthcare fraud. Finally, the court held that the district court did not plainly err in deciding not to sever defendant's case. View "United States v. Gevorgyan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of statements he made to officers confessing to his ownership of the firearms and ammunition. The court held that the connection between the unlawful stop and search and defendant's subsequent statements was sufficiently attenuated. In this case, defendant was informed of, and waived his Miranda rights; his lawful arrest for being a felon in possession of ammunition was a critical intervening circumstance; and the misconduct at issue was not purposeful and flagrant, but instead was motivated by legitimate safety concerns. Finally, the court noted that defendant's speculation as to how the officers may have exploited the unlawfully obtained revolver to secure his statements was simply too little, too late. View "United States v. Mendez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of statements he made to officers confessing to his ownership of the firearms and ammunition. The court held that the connection between the unlawful stop and search and defendant's subsequent statements was sufficiently attenuated. In this case, defendant was informed of, and waived his Miranda rights; his lawful arrest for being a felon in possession of ammunition was a critical intervening circumstance; and the misconduct at issue was not purposeful and flagrant, but instead was motivated by legitimate safety concerns. Finally, the court noted that defendant's speculation as to how the officers may have exploited the unlawfully obtained revolver to secure his statements was simply too little, too late. View "United States v. Mendez" on Justia Law

On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court erred by not enjoining the state from prosecuting him for pending misdemeanor charges. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Younger abstention precluded an injunction, and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court held that the district court correctly determined that the three criteria that generally require Younger abstention were satisfied where the federal proceeding would clearly interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; the underlying state proceeding concerned the enforcement of state criminal laws, something in which the state has a strong interest; and defendant could raise his challenges to the state criminal proceedings in state court. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions. View "Gates v. Strain" on Justia Law