Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff responded to a distracted-driving enforcement campaign conducted by Defendants (the City of Stamford and its Sergeant) by standing down the street from where police sat holding a sign stating "Cops Ahead." Plaintiff's sign was confiscated twice before he was arrested for interfering with an officer. Charges were filed, Plaintiff spent a night in jail, and shortly thereafter, the prosecution dropped the charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit under Sec. 1983, claiming Defendants infringed on his freedom of speech, engaged in malicious prosecution, and deprived him of equal protection and due process, violating the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed.The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part Plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim. Specifically, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants on the First and Fourth Amendment claims but did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court held that no Connecticut law proscribed Plaintiff's conduct, and thus, officers did not have probable cause to arrest him. Thus, the district court erred in finding that the existence of probable cause served as a complete defense to Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. The court also held that Plaintiff's speech was protected but rejected his equal protection and due process claims based on the City's bail-setting policies. View "Friend v. Gasparino" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. Section 552, seeking documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) related to himself, speculating that they might include exculpatory information that the government had not disclosed in his recent criminal trial. The government produced sets of responsive documents and an index detailing FOIA exemptions under which it withheld other responsive documents, and the district court granted summary judgment for the government. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment to the United States Department of Justice.   On appeal, Plaintiff argued (1) that summary judgment was improperly granted because his FOIA action is an effort to vindicate his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and (2) that, in the alternative, the district court erred in not conducting an in-camera inspection of withheld documents. The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 658 F.2d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 1981), FOIA and the criminal discovery process provide distinct tracks for seeking disclosure from the government. That a FOIA action might lead to the discovery of documents useful to a particular criminal defendant changes neither the government’s statutorily defined obligations under FOIA nor the government’s burden at summary judgment. View "Jabar v. U.S. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

The government petitions for a panel rehearing of so much of the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gibson, 55 F.4th 153 (2d Cir. 2022), as ruled that the 2015 removal of naloxegol from the federal controlled substances schedules promulgated under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. Sections 801-971, rendered those schedules categorically narrower than the New York drug schedules applicable to Defendant’s 2002 state-law conviction. The government's petition suggests that that ruling in the court’s opinion ("Opinion") was dictum rather than a holding and asks that the court issue an amended opinion so stating.   The Second Circuit granted rehearing in order to note the government's various positions on the comparability of the state and federal drug schedules and to flag some defects in the petition's characterizations of the record. However, the court denied the request for an amended opinion. The court explained that the comparability of the New York's 2002 drug schedules and the current federal drug schedules was an issue that the district court was required to, and did, decide in order to make a determination as to what Defendant’s Guidelines sentence would be. This Court was required to and did, determine whether the district court's decision was correct. View "USA v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of extortion for threatening to disseminate nude photographs of Jane Doe if she did not return to a relationship with him. Defendant appealed, arguing that the plea proceedings were defective because the district court did not explain the “wrongfulness” element of extortion under United States v. Jackson. He also challenged two special conditions of supervised release on First Amendment grounds: (1) a requirement that Defendant seek retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and her brother-in-law, John Doe, and (2) a requirement that he seek approval from the district court before publishing any further information about them.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the plea proceedings were not defective because the district court correctly determined that Defendant understood the “nature of each charge” to which he pled. Second, the special condition that Defendant seeks retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and John Doe has expired, so Defendant’s challenge to that condition is moot. Finally, the special condition that Defendant seeks approval from the district court before publishing further information about Jane Doe and John Doe does not violate the First Amendment under the circumstances here. Defendant pled guilty to extortion by threatening to publish nude images of Jane Doe, and he is a journalist who had published or threatened to publish information about her and John Doe in the past. So the district court acted within its broad discretion by imposing the narrowly tailored special condition requiring Defendant to obtain approval from the court before publishing any further information about them. View "United States v. Farooq" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in district court with five counts of an eight-count indictment in connection with two killings. Counts Four, Five, and Six charged Defendant with conspiring to commit, and committing, murder for hire. Counts Seven and Eight charged Defendant with the use of a firearm to commit murder. Defendant was convicted on all five counts and received a sentence of five concurrent life terms, one for each count. In response to intervening Supreme Court precedent, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 asserting that his two Section 924(j) convictions on Counts Seven and Eight should be vacated. The district court agreed and granted the motion. The court declined, however, to resentence Defendant de novo. Defendant argued that this was an error, either because de novo resentencing was mandatory, or because the district court abused its discretion in declining to resentence Defendant de novo.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Section 2255's statutory text vests district courts with the discretion to decide when to conduct a de novo resentencing and that de novo resentencing was not mandatory here. The court also concluded that because resentencing Defendant would have been “strictly ministerial,” resulting in the same sentence of mandatory life imprisonment that he received in the first instance, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Peña" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 36 months in prison following his conviction by a jury of witness retaliation. Defendant challenged the manner in which the district court conducted jury selection, arguing primarily that the district court neglected to adequately screen prospective jurors for bias against gang members and that the voir dire process was too abbreviated to allow for informed peremptory and for-cause challenges.   The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court explained that, under these circumstances, the district court exceeded its discretion by failing to sufficiently account for the risk of gang-related bias among prospective jurors. The court explained that the district court’s failure on voir dire to explore or to take other steps specifically to counter such potential prejudice unfairly deprived Defendant of the opportunity to unearth a pervasive bias relevant to an issue pivotal to the government’s case against him. Accordingly, the court held that the district court abused its discretion. View "United States of America v. Nieves" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed various issues arising from his 2017 amended judgment of conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses in district court. The Second Circuit addressed two of Defendant’s arguments—first that the order of forfeiture entered against him should be vacated because the district court failed to enter a preliminary order prior to sentencing, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B); second, that he was improperly convicted of possessing firearms as a felon, Counts Twelve through Fourteen because the government did not prove that he knew that he was a felon.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that Defendant asserted that forfeiture is unlike restitution, which was at issue in Dolan because restitution is intended to assist the victims of crimes. Forfeiture and restitution indeed serve different purposes: restitution is for “remediating a loss,” while forfeiture is for “disgorging a gain.” But that distinction is less material here. Forfeiture also serves other important purposes, and the court saw no reason why, for purposes of timing, restitution and forfeiture should be treated differently under these circumstances. Defendant also argued that the government alone is responsible for preserving the value of seized assets, but for support, he cites only an inapposite customs statute. However, the court found that Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice sufficient to void the forfeiture order. View "United States v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment of conviction following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms (kg) of marijuana. During a reverse-sting operation, Defendant took possession of 10 kg of real and “sham” cocaine from an undercover agent and agreed to take possession of 40 kg more. After his arrest, Defendant told law enforcement that he thought he was picking up marijuana or money, not cocaine. Defendant later entered a plea agreement, in which he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute marijuana. At sentencing, the government raised and the district court considered the 50 kg of cocaine as part of Defendant’s “relevant conduct” under Sentencing Guideline Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months imprisonment.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court concluded that (1) the plea agreement permitted the government to raise that quantity of cocaine at sentencing, (2) the government was not judicially estopped from doing so, and (3) the district court did not err by considering the 50 kg of cocaine as part of Defendant’s “relevant conduct” because Guideline Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) does not require scienter as to drug type when a defendant is directly and personally involved in a drug transaction. View "United States v. Helm" on Justia Law

In 2021, Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the convictions of Defendants after trial in the district court. Among other things, the Second Circuit affirmed Defendants’ convictions under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) for brandishing firearms during and in relation to attempted Hobbs Act robberies. The Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded to the Second Circuit for further consideration in in light of its decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). See McCoy v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2863 (2022); Nix v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2860 (2022).   The Second Circuit reversed Defendants’ section 924(c) convictions on Counts 4 and 6 for brandishing firearms during and in relation to attempted Hobbs Act robberies. The court agreed after Taylor, attempted Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A). More specifically, the Supreme Court explained that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence pursuant to section 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause because an attempt does not categorically require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force against the person or property of another. View "United States v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and unlawful use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. In his plea agreement, Petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge his convictions and sentence so long as the district court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment equal to or less than 106 months. He was sentenced principally to 96 months imprisonment. Petitioner appealed the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate his section 924(c)(1)(A) conviction and his corresponding sentence. He contends that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), invalidate his conviction on that count. The government disputes primarily that Petitioner’s guilty plea to the section 924(c)(1)(A) conviction rested solely on Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, contending that the conviction also rested on the predicate crime of attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The government asserts that the record is sufficient to support Petitioner’s guilt based on attempted Hobbs Act robbery.   The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Petitioner relief under section 2255, vacated Petitioner’s conviction and related sentence under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1); and remanded to allow resentencing. The court explained that on de novo review, and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence.” Thus, the court concluded that Petitioner’s conviction under section 924(c)(1)(A) is invalid. View "Hall v. United States" on Justia Law