Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The court addressed Defendants' appeal of the District Court’s Rule 33 Order. On appeal, the court addressed the district court’s ruling that the information withheld by the prosecution was neither “suppressed” within the meaning of Brady, nor prejudicial, and therefore denied Defendants’ motions. Defendants argue that the withheld information would have supplied impeachment evidence against the government’s witness.The Second Circuit rejected Defendant's claim, finding that there was significant additional evidence against both Defendants, such that simply impeaching the government's witness would not have sufficed to upset the trial verdict. Further, the court found that impeachment based on the withheld information would have been cumulative, and thus non-prejudicial. The court reasoned that “strictly speaking, there is never a real ‘Brady violation’ unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.”The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendants’ Rule 33 motions for a new trial. View "U.S. v. Hunter et al." on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants for various offenses for their role in a crime syndicate. The court sentenced each defendant to 198 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendants raised various arguments including challenges to the admissibility of certain trial testimony, the correctness of the jury charge, the sufficiency of the Government’s proof, and the lawfulness of their sentences.The court found that the district court did not clearly err in permitting a witness to identify one of the defendants at trial nor did it abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Further, the court declined to address the defendant’s double jeopardy claim. Moreover, the court affirmed the defendants’ RICO convictions and RICO conspiracy convictions. The court further affirmed defendants’ arson and conspiracy to commit arson convictions. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the defendants' sentences. In sum, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Gershman" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding Defendant Ayfer has not yet satisfied her restitution obligation to W.A-M. The court also concluded that district courts may employ the hybrid approach to craft restitution orders that both apportion liability among multiple defendants according to the loss caused by each defendant and hold defendants jointly and severally liable for some portion of the amounts owed to their victim or victims. The court explained that such hybrid restitution obligations are ordinarily not satisfied until either a defendant has paid as much as she has been ordered to pay or the victim has been made whole. The court finally concluded that Defendant Hakan lacks standing to challenge the district court's orders as to Ayfer's rights and obligations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order in appeal No. 20-2144-cr and dismissed the consolidated appeals in Nos. 20-1540-cr and 20-1542-cr for lack of standing. View "United States v. Yalincak" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit concluded that, under its precedents, there can be no doubt that a Notice to Appear that omits information regarding the time and date of the initial removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the Immigration Court, so long as a notice specifying this information is later sent to the alien. The court also concluded that using a false document in connection with petitioner's application for a U.S. passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), requires that an offender make a material misrepresentation with the intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government, and thus it is a crime involving moral turpitude that renders petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to terminate removal proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal. View "Cupete v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2016, Clenista, then on supervised release for another federal methamphetamine-distribution conviction pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A). The court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Clenista moved for compassionate release in 2020, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1).The district court denied Clenista's motion. The court assumed that Clenista had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances, but ultimately determined that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release. The Second Circuit affirmed. While defendants who received a mandatory minimum sentence are eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(1), the district court did not abuse its discretion when it placed weight on the need to recognize the seriousness of Clenista's offense, to provide a just punishment, to protect the public from further such activity and Clenista’s characteristics, rather than on changed circumstances, such as Clenista’s age and health and the pandemic. View "United States v. Clenista" on Justia Law

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires defendants convicted of certain crimes to reimburse their victims for “lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense,” 18 U.S.C. 3663A(b)(4). The Second Circuit previously held that “other expenses” could include attorneys’ fees incurred by victims while helping the government investigate and prosecute the defendant and costs incurred while privately investigating the defendant. The Supreme Court subsequently held that “the words ‘investigation’ and ‘proceedings’ are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings.”Afriyie was convicted of securities fraud after trading on inside information he misappropriated from his employer, MSD. The district court entered the restitution order, covering the fees MSD paid its law firm to guide MSD’s compliance with investigations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the SEC; to help prepare four MSD witnesses to testify at Afriyie’s criminal trial; and to represent MSD during the post-verdict restitution proceedings.The Second Circuit held that attorneys’ fees can sometimes be “other expenses” but a victim cannot recover expenses incurred while participating in an SEC investigation. Restitution is appropriate only for expenses associated with criminal matters; civil matters, including SEC investigations, even if closely related to a criminal case do not qualify. View "United States v. Afriyie" on Justia Law

In connection with his leading role in a Chinese construction company in 2010-2016, Zhong was convicted of forced-labor conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 1594(b); forced labor, section 1589(a) and (b); concealing passports and immigration documents in connection with forced labor, section 1592(a); alien smuggling conspiracy, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); and visa fraud conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371.The Second Circuit vacated in part. The district court committed evidentiary errors that may have affected the jury’s decision to convict Zhong on the three forced-labor counts. The court allowed testimony about 2001-2002 preindictment conduct, preventing Zhong’s attempts to impeach a witness by offering evidence of the witness’s reputation for truthfulness, and permitting expert witness testimony that exceeded its proper scope. .Those errors were unconnected to Zhong’s other two counts. The government presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to convict him on the alien smuggling and visa fraud counts. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give an “adverse but legitimate consequences” jury instruction regarding threats made to the workers. View "United States v. Zhong" on Justia Law

At a gas station, police detained the vehicle that Patterson was driving because it fit the description of a car whose occupants had reportedly menaced a woman with a firearm in a nearby supermarket parking lot. They discovered a gun. Patterson was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).The district court granted Patterson’s motion to suppress the firearm, stating that the degree of force used in detaining Patterson’s vehicle and its occupants—pointing firearms at, shouting orders toward, and blocking an exit route for the vehicle—exceeded that permissible for a reasonable investigatory stop and had to be viewed as a de facto arrest; the arrest was unlawful because, when first effected, it was not supported by probable cause; and the firearm seized from the car’s glove compartment after Patterson fled the scene had to be suppressed as a fruit of the unlawful arrest.The Second Circuit reversed. Patterson’s initial detention in the vehicle was not an arrest but an investigatory stop supported by the requisite reasonable suspicion. Pointing firearms at, shouting toward, and blocking an exit route for the vehicle driven by Patterson, were reasonable safety precautions given that the officers were investigating a report of menacing with a firearm. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The court held that acceptance of a guilty plea must be reviewed de novo. The court also concluded that although the district court's use of the term "provisional" was imprecise, the totality of the record reflects that the district court did accept defendant's guilty plea prior to his motion to withdraw that plea. Therefore, the district court correctly applied the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2) standard in considering defendant's motion to withdraw his plea after determining that he had not established a Brady violation, and the district court committed no error in denying the motion to withdraw. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim, based on counsel's failure to adequately address the issues that defendant now raises, fails for lack of prejudice. View "United States v. Overton" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen and resident of France charged with violating the Commodity Exchange Act, appealed the district court's memorandum order applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and denying her motions to dismiss the indictment on grounds of extraterritoriality and due process.After determining that it has jurisdiction to review the order disentitling defendant, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to consider or reconsider the merits of her motions to dismiss. The court agreed with defendant that it has jurisdiction to review the fugitive disentitlement ruling pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. The court held that defendant is not a fugitive, and that, even if she were, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that disentitlement was justified. The court explained that fugitivity implies some action by defendant to distance herself from the United States or frustrate arrest, but she took no such action. The court concluded, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the extraterritoriality and due process challenges and dismissed the appeal to that extent. View "United States v. Sindzingre" on Justia Law