Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's first degree murder conviction and death sentence. The panel concluded that the California Supreme Court's conclusion that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar further prosecution of petitioner was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).The panel also concluded that the state court's conclusion that petitioner's rights to due process and a reliable penalty determination were not violated by the admission at trial of a videotaped conditional examination of the victim's boyfriend was not an unreasonable determination of facts within the meaning of section 2254(d)(2). The panel further concluded that the state court's conclusion that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by testimony at trial regarding certain out-of-court statements was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the state court's conclusion that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the trial court's exclusion of his videotaped confession at the penalty phase does not warrant relief under section 2254(d); the state court's conclusion that petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a fundamentally fair sentencing hearing was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; the state court concluded that petitioner's rights to due process, a fair penalty trial, and a reliable sentence were not violated by the admission of evidence concerning his prior incidents of violence; the state court's rejection of petitioner's challenge to the instructions given to the jury in his case was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the state court's rejection of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his attorney's concession that petitioner intentionally killed the victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for evidentiary development, discovery, and an evidentiary hearing. View "Jurado v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition seeking relief from his first degree murder conviction and death sentence. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019), which summarized the factors courts should consider when evaluating a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the panel remanded so the district court can apply in the first instance the Supreme Court's guidance in Flowers. The panel resolved remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "Ervin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The panel addressed the same issue that arose in Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), and held that California Penal Code 273a(a) does not qualify as a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.The panel concluded that the text of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA's interpretation of "a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment" as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that, while several of its sister circuits have deferred to the BIA's decision in Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), the panel found those decision both distinguishable and unpersuasive. The panel explained that, because section 273a(a) criminalizes conduct that falls outside the generic federal definition, it is not a categorical match for "a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment." View "Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release that defendant may not "patronize any place" where sexually explicit "materials or entertainment are the primary material or entertainment available." The panel held that the condition barred defendant from visiting a free pornography website. The panel explained that, interpreting this language, as defendant argues, to require that an individual directly purchase goods or services from a physical location, ignores the common understanding of these terms as they are used in today's digital age, particularly in light of the oral instructions given by the district court to defendant here.In the alternative, the panel held that the record supports the conclusion that defendant searched for and viewed materials depicting sexually explicit conduct, which constituted an independent violation of the special condition at issue. The panel rejected defendant's remaining arguments in a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when, as a condition of his supervised release and while his appeal of his conviction was pending, he was required to complete a sex offender treatment program, and then was discharged from the program and given a limited jail sanction for refusing to admit to the conduct underlying his conviction, a required part of his treatment.The panel held that it was bound by the rule adopted by six justices in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 770 (2003) (plurality opinion), as enunciated in this court's precedent, and consistent with the rule adopted by sister circuits—that the Fifth Amendment is not violated unless and until allegedly coerced statements are used against a suspect in a criminal case. The panel concluded that because plaintiff did not make a statement that was used in a criminal proceeding, he may not bring a civil action against the government under section 1983 for a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of this claim. The panel also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims alleging that the government officials involved in this incident violated plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his First Amendment right to bring a civil lawsuit against the government. View "Chavez v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Juliano pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm and of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. Juliano had a 262-327-month guideline imprisonment range. The government agreed to recommend 240 months of imprisonment, then the minimum for Count 2, for a defendant who had one prior felony drug offense conviction. He was sentenced to 240 months. About 10 weeks after Juliano’s sentencing, the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum penalty for certain drug crimes, including those for which Juliano was convicted, from 20 to 15 years, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A).Juliano moved under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his attorneys failed to investigate or inform him about the pending First Step Act, or to seek a continuance of his sentencing. The district court reasoned that courts “have uniformly concluded that a defense attorney is not deficient in failing to anticipate a change in the law” and that “it is doubtful the Court would have been receptive to a request to delay sentencing.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Given the general uncertainty surrounding pending legislation, counsel’s alleged failure to advise Juliano about the First Step Act or to seek a continuance fails to meet the highly deferential Strickland test for deficient performance. View "United States v. Juliano" on Justia Law

Porretti, a 62-year-old prisoner, has suffered from serious mental illnesses—Tourette’s syndrome, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality disorder, and paranoid schizophrenia— throughout his life. Porretti’s mental illnesses have caused him to attempt suicide and to suffer psychotic symptoms, including compulsive ingestion of metal objects like razor blades, paranoid delusions, hallucinations, and verbal tics. Porretti received Wellbutrin and Seroquel for his mental illnesses before he was incarcerated in Nevada and after he entered into the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). In 2017, without the recommendation of a healthcare provider, NDOC stopped providing his medication because of a new administrative policy.The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to provide Porretti’s Wellbutrin and Seroquel. The district court carefully applied the preliminary-injunction factors and rendered highly detailed factual findings that rejected opinions from NDOC’s experts for reasons grounded in the record evidence; Porrettif’s Eighth Amendment claim was likely to succeed on the merits and he would suffer irreparable harm in the form of “very serious or extreme damage to his mental health” if injunctive relief were not granted. Porretti’s severe and persistent psychotic symptoms overwhelmingly outweighed NDOC’s financial or logistical burdens in providing Wellbutrin and Seroquel. An injunction was in the public’s interest because prisons must comply with the standard of care mandated by the Eighth Amendment. View "Porretti v. Dzurenda" on Justia Law

In 2017, Pollard was indicted for possessing a gun as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Over the previous 20 years, he had been convicted of several felonies and served over five years in prison, including for a 2004 violation of California’s felon-in-possession statute. Pollard pled guilty. He was sentenced to 57 months and did not appeal.A year later, the Supreme Court decided “Rehaif,” holding that section 922(g)(1) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew he was a felon at the time of possession. Pollard moved to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a), contending that his guilty plea was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary without having been informed of section 922(g)(1)’s knowledge-of-status element. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Pollard’s motion because he had not shown actual prejudice and failed to overcome the procedurally defaulted nature of his claim. View "United States v. Pollard" on Justia Law

San Francisco pretrial detainees filed a putative class action challenging conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the denial of access to outdoor recreation and direct sunlight. The court enjoined some of the jail’s practices, finding the evidence inconclusive as to whether the lack of direct sunlight created a medical risk and that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in seeking exercise time outdoors. The policy of permitting general population inmates to receive 4.5-8 hours of day room time and 30 minutes of gym time daily was constitutionally sufficient but forcing pretrial detainees to live without direct sunlight for years was simply punishment. The court ordered the jail to provide one hour per week of direct sunlight to inmates who had been incarcerated for more than four years. The court dismissed the Sheriff’s Department as a superfluous defendant and dismissed individual defendants based on qualified immunity.The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part. The government’s appeal was moot because the preliminary injunction order expired after 90 days, The district court did not err in denying greater preliminary injunctive relief; there is no bright-line test to determine if and when inmates are entitled to outdoor exercise. Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on their “direct sunlight” claim given the district court’s extensive factual findings. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ cross-appeal of the dismissal of the Sheriff’s Department and the individual defendants. View "Norbert v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Bartley was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), based on his 2011 commitment to an Idaho state hospital after he was found incompetent to stand trial. Section 922(g)(4) prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bartley’s motion to dismiss.The court rejected Bartley’s contentions that the 2011 state proceedings to determine his competency to face criminal charges lacked due process and that because the state court did not find that he was both mentally ill and dangerous, the 2011 proceedings did not constitute an adjudication or commitment within the meaning of section 922(g)(4). Neither section 922(g)(4) nor 27 C.F.R. 478.11 requires a finding that the committed person was both mentally ill and dangerous nor a separate finding under Idaho law that Bartley was a person to whom section 922(g)(4) applies. Assuming without deciding that the application of section 922(g)(4) to Bartley burdened Second Amendment rights, the court applied intermediate scrutiny and found the government’s statutory objective to be “significant, substantial, or important,” and a “reasonable fit” between the challenged law and that objective. View "United States v. Bartley" on Justia Law