Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction of five counts arising from his operation of a prostitution business. The Second Circuit held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his Facebook account, because even if the warrants authorizing seizure of that evidence were defective, the officers who collected and reviewed the evidence reasonably relied on them in good faith.The court also held that the government presented sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find defendant guilty on Counts Two and Five, and that the testimony that defendant challenges was properly admitted non-hearsay. However, the court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence of venue in the Southern District of New York with respect to Count One, which charged defendant with enticement to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Accordingly, the court reversed as to that conviction and affirmed as to all other counts, remanding for dismissal of Count One. View "United States v. Purcell" on Justia Law

After expungement of his disciplinary record of theft, plaintiff filed suit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice at the pleading stage and then awarded summary judgment to defendants on the due process claims.The Second Circuit held that plaintiff received adequate notice in regard to the charges against him. However, the court held that plaintiff's disciplinary conviction was not sufficiently supported by the evidence and the proceedings were tainted by procedural lapses that violated plaintiff's' due process rights. In this case, the defendant prison officers failed to consult readily available prison records to identify the officers with relevant information, limiting defendant's ability to defend against the charges. The court also held that the district court exceeded the permissible bounds of its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim without providing him a meaningful opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "Elder v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count One) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy (Count Three). The Second Circuit held that defendant has not shown that the error in his conviction on Count Three, made plain by the decisions in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019), invalidating the stated crime-of-violence predicate for that offense, affected his substantial rights. In light of defendant's willingness to plead guilty to Count Three in order to gain dismissal of Count Two and avoid its mandatory minimum 10-year term of imprisonment, the court held that defendant has not shown any reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty to Count Three in order to secure that beneficial result based on the permissible drug-trafficking-crime predicate alleged in Count Three. View "United States v. Dussard" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal and affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration case. The court held that Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2013), foreclosed petitioner's claim that the application of former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3) as written violates his right to equal protection. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017). Pet. Br. at 14, did not invalidate Pierre.As to petitioner's alternative argument that the BIA must consider in the first instance whether his conviction for assault in the second degree under NYPL 120.05(2) is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), the court held that his argument is precluded by Singh v. Barr, 939 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam). View "Dale v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). The court held that the district court correctly held that a defendant in a SORNA prosecution may not collaterally challenge his underlying sex offender conviction. The court also held that circuit precedent precludes the argument that sex offender registration and notification requirements are punitive. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that SORNA does not violate the Fifth or Eighth Amendments. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The court held that the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury that "any" witness with "an interest in the outcome" of the trial had "a motive . . . to testify falsely." Furthermore, there is a reasonable probability that defendant was prejudiced by the erroneous witness credibility instruction. The court considered the government's arguments in support of affirmance and found them unpersuasive. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Solano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit against various corrections officials alleging that (1) New York DOCCS Rule 105.13 banning gang insignia or materials is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his photographs depicting family and friends wearing blue and making hand signs and (2) his placement in a special housing unit for six months following a prison disciplinary hearing determination that he had violated Rule 105.13 by possessing those photographs violated his due process rights.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that Rule 105.13 provides adequate standards for prison guards to determine whether pictures of people wearing blue and intentionally making "C" hand signs are prohibited. In this case, no reasonable prison guard could have doubted that plaintiff's possession of photographs of people wearing blue and making "C" hand signs violated Rule 105.13 and, therefore, there was no danger that the Rule's enforcement would be arbitrary with regard to plaintiff's photographs. The court also held that plaintiff received a hearing that provided the minimal requirements of procedural due process. The court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. View "Williams v. Korines" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), bank fraud, and money laundering in connection with a scheme to evade U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. Defendant is a Turkish national and former Deputy General Manager of Turkey's state-owned bank.The court held that, although the district court provided a partially erroneous jury instruction on the IEEPA statute, the error was harmless given that the jury was properly instructed on an alternative theory of liability for which the evidence was overwhelming. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining convictions; the statute that prohibits defrauding the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371, reaches defendant's conspiracy to obstruct the United States' enforcement of its economic sanctions laws; and, even assuming that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the phone call recording and transcript, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Atilla" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed, as modified, defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to cyberstalking and distributing of a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing an above-Guidelines 48-month term of imprisonment, which was justified as a variance. The court also held that defendant's challenge to the supervised release condition is moot because the Western District of New York's standing order permissibly modifies the applicable condition. View "United States v. Traficante" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted petitions for review of the BIA's decisions ordering petitioners removed based on their New York firearms convictions. The court principally concluded that the statutes of conviction, sections 265.03 and 265.11 of the New York Penal Law, criminalize conduct involving "antique firearms" that the relevant firearms offense definitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act do not. Therefore, the court held that this categorical mismatch precludes petitioners' removal on the basis of their state convictions. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's decisions and remanded with instructions to terminate the removal hearings. View "Jack v. Barr" on Justia Law