Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Eric Tompkins was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and possessing child pornography. During his arrest, a Samsung cellular phone with an SD card was seized. A search warrant was obtained to examine the phone for evidence related to his failure to register. During the search, child pornography was found on the SD card. A second warrant was then obtained to search the phone and SD card specifically for child pornography, leading to the discovery of additional images.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Tompkins's motion to suppress the images found on the SD card, ruling that the search was conducted in good faith. Tompkins argued that the initial search warrant did not specifically authorize the search of the SD card, making the search unlawful and tainting the subsequent search.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the initial search warrant, which authorized the search of the cellular phone for electronically stored information, included the SD card as it is a form of electronic storage. The court concluded that the search of the SD card fell within the scope of the warrant. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting Tompkins's argument that the search was unauthorized. View "United States v. Tompkins" on Justia Law

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, followed by concurrent terms of supervised release. Maxwell appealed her conviction on several grounds, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the statute of limitations, jury impartiality, constructive amendment of the indictment, and the reasonableness of her sentence.The District Court denied Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that Epstein’s NPA with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar her prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The court also found that the second superseding indictment complied with the statute of limitations, as the relevant statute extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for offenses committed before its enactment. Additionally, the District Court denied Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of a juror’s erroneous answers during voir dire. The court also rejected Maxwell’s claim that its response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the indictment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Epstein’s NPA did not bind the Southern District of New York, the indictment was timely, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, and the response to the jury note did not result in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. The court also found Maxwell’s sentence to be procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

Manuel Antonio Suquilanda was convicted of unlawfully reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenged his conviction on two grounds: first, that the initial removal proceedings were invalid because the Notice to Appear (NTA) he received lacked the place of hearing and address-of-filing information, thus stripping the Immigration Court of jurisdiction; and second, that § 1326 is unconstitutional as it discriminates against Latin Americans, violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Suquilanda’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that any defect in the NTA did not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction, referencing the Second Circuit’s precedent in Banegas Gomez v. Barr. The court also concluded that the address-of-filing requirement was a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule. On the constitutional challenge, the court found that while the 1929 Act had discriminatory intent, Suquilanda failed to show that the 1952 reenactment of § 1326 was motivated by racial animus.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the missing hearing information in the NTA was cured by a subsequent notice, and the address-of-filing requirement was non-jurisdictional. On the constitutional issue, the court applied the Arlington Heights framework and found that Suquilanda did not demonstrate that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the 1952 enactment of § 1326. Consequently, the court concluded that § 1326 does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. View "United States v. Suquilanda" on Justia Law

Rickey Johnson was convicted of making threatening interstate communications and threatening U.S. officials. He posted videos and sent messages on Instagram threatening Fox News hosts Greg Gutfeld and Laura Ingraham, Senator Joe Manchin, and Representative Lauren Boebert. Johnson was indicted on four counts, including making threatening interstate communications and threatening U.S. officials. During the trial, the district court dismissed three jurors, reducing the jury to eleven members. The jury found Johnson guilty on three counts and not guilty on one count. Johnson was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York handled the initial trial. Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court made five errors: proceeding with eleven jurors without stipulation, dismissing two jurors without good cause, admitting hearsay evidence, delivering an "uncalled witness charge," and improperly admitting expert testimony as lay testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in proceeding with eleven jurors without stipulation but deemed the error harmless. The dismissals of the jurors were found to be within the district court's discretion. The admission of Gutfeld’s email was upheld as an excited utterance and not a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The "uncalled witness charge" was deemed appropriate, and Kelley’s testimony was found to be permissible lay opinion.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that any errors were either not present or harmless, and Johnson’s convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case, three defendants, officers and executives of the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative (CMEEC), were convicted of theft involving a program receiving federal funds. The defendants misappropriated funds from CMEEC in 2015 to pay for personal vacations disguised as corporate retreats. These trips included visits to the Kentucky Derby and the Greenbrier Resort, with expenses charged to CMEEC's accounts.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut oversaw the trial, where the jury found the defendants guilty of one count of theft involving a program receiving federal funds. The jury determined that CMEEC received more than $10,000 in federal benefits in 2015, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). The defendants were acquitted on other counts, including conspiracy and theft for the years 2014 and 2016. The district court sentenced the defendants to imprisonment and ordered restitution for the misappropriated funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the defendants' claims of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The appellate court held that CMEEC received federal benefits exceeding $10,000 in 2015, as the funds were provided under a federal grant program. The court also found no merit in the defendants' argument that the government misled the grand jury or that the district court erred in setting the restitution amount. Additionally, the court denied CMEEC's petition for mandamus, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that the legal fees advanced to the defendants lacked a sufficient causal relationship to their offense of conviction.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction and restitution order, and denied CMEEC's petition for mandamus. View "United States v. Sullivan, Bilda, Rankin" on Justia Law

In 2007, Mohamed Musaid was arrested for the murder of a relative and confessed to the crime. However, his trial was delayed for over eight years due to repeated findings of incompetence to stand trial, attributed to his long history of mental illness. Musaid was found incompetent on ten occasions and competent on five, with his competency dependent on his compliance with antipsychotic medication. Each time he was found competent and transferred to Rikers Island, he would refuse medication and regress to incompetence.The trial court eventually allowed Musaid's trial to proceed nearly ten months after a final finding of competency, without re-evaluating his mental state. During the trial, Musaid exhibited erratic behavior, raising questions about his competency. Despite this, the trial court did not conduct a further inquiry into his mental state. Musaid was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life for second-degree murder and five years for criminal possession of a weapon.Musaid appealed, arguing that the trial court's failure to reassess his competency before trial violated his due process rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, stating there was no indication that Musaid was unable to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. Musaid then sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the trial court's failure to conduct a minimal inquiry into Musaid's competency just before trial was objectively unreasonable, given his history of mental illness and the time elapsed since the last competency evaluation. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, allowing the state courts to determine whether it is possible to reconstruct Musaid's competency at the time of trial based on evidence proximate to the trial. View "Musaid v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

In November 2005, Derrek Pannell and accomplices robbed a United States Post Office in Brooklyn, New York. Pannell, an employee of the Post Office, used his knowledge of the keypad lock to gain entry. The robbers restrained five employees and held them at gunpoint while demanding money from a safe. They fled with over $65,000 and assaulted a supervisor outside. Pannell was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, aggravated robbery, and brandishing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.Following his conviction, Pannell's direct appeal was unsuccessful. He then sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his conviction for aggravated postal robbery did not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied his motion, concluding that both the base and aggravated offenses of § 2114(a) robbery qualified as crimes of violence. Pannell appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. Pannell argued that his § 924(c) conviction was invalid because aggravated postal robbery under § 2114(a) is not a crime of violence, especially when based on a Pinkerton theory of liability. The court rejected this argument, citing precedent that a conviction under a Pinkerton theory does not alter the nature of the substantive offense. The court also held that the base offense of § 2114(a) robbery qualifies as a crime of violence, and thus, the aggravated offense does as well. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Pannell's § 2255 motion. View "Pannell v. United States" on Justia Law

Samuel Boima, a native of Sierra Leone, was charged with assaulting federal officers at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility while awaiting deportation. The incident involved Boima spitting a mixture of saliva and blood on the officers. Following his arrest, Boima exhibited uncooperative and erratic behavior, leading to a court-ordered psychological evaluation. Dr. Kari Schlessinger diagnosed Boima with a psychotic disorder, concluding he was incompetent to stand trial. Boima was subsequently committed to the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, for further evaluation.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York found Boima incompetent to stand trial and ordered his hospitalization. Dr. Kristina P. Lloyd and Dr. Charles Cloutier at FMC Butner diagnosed Boima with schizophrenia and recommended antipsychotic medication to restore his competency. The government moved for a Sell hearing to authorize involuntary medication. The district court granted the motion but did not address whether the government had an important interest in prosecuting Boima, a necessary finding under Sell v. United States.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court's order authorizing forced medication, noting the lower court's failure to consider whether important governmental interests were at stake, as required by Sell. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the government’s interest in prosecuting Boima justified involuntary medication, considering factors such as the seriousness of the crime, potential civil commitment, and the time Boima had already spent in custody. View "United States v. Boima" on Justia Law

Victor Rivera participated in a robbery crew responsible for over a dozen robberies of jewelers and luxury watch owners between October 2019 and November 2020. The crew identified victims on social media and ambushed them, often at gunpoint. Rivera was arrested and indicted on 18 counts. He pled guilty to one count of participating in a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy under a plea agreement with a stipulated Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York accepted Rivera's plea agreement. However, the Probation Office's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) revealed additional convictions in Puerto Rico, increasing Rivera's criminal history points from three to ten, placing him in Criminal History Category V. The Government, agreeing with the PSR, advocated for a revised Guidelines range of 235 to 240 months. Rivera's defense argued that the Government should have reviewed his criminal history more thoroughly before the plea agreement. The district court sentenced Rivera to 235 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. Rivera argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by advocating for a higher Guidelines range based on information available at the time of the plea and by describing him as a leader in the conspiracy. The court found that the Government breached the plea agreement by relying on Rivera’s Puerto Rico convictions, which were available at the time of the plea. However, this breach did not amount to a "plain" error. The court also found no error in the Government's description of Rivera as a leader, as it was relevant to the sentencing factors. Rivera's procedural and substantive challenges to his sentence were rejected, and his request for resentencing due to a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines was denied. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

In 2013, the petitioner was convicted in Monroe County, New York, of engaging in a course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the child victim, who described years of sexual abuse by the petitioner. A medical expert for the prosecution testified that the child's normal physical examination was consistent with past sexual abuse, as any injuries would have healed over time. The defense did not call a medical expert but cross-examined the prosecution's expert to elicit that normal findings could also indicate no abuse.The petitioner challenged his conviction in state court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult or call a medical expert. The Appellate Division rejected this claim, stating that the petitioner had not shown that such testimony was available, would have assisted the jury, or that he was prejudiced by its absence. The New York Court of Appeals denied further review. The petitioner then filed a motion under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10, which was also denied without a hearing. The state court found that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the absence of a defense expert, as the prosecution's expert's key conclusions were not seriously challenged.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, ruling that the state courts had not unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim. The petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the state courts did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in concluding that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to consult or call a medical expert. The court noted that the defense counsel effectively neutralized the prosecution's expert through cross-examination, and the petitioner failed to show that expert testimony would have likely changed the trial's outcome. View "Englert v. Lowerre" on Justia Law