Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns Thomas Osadzinski, who was convicted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. In 2019, Osadzinski, a computer science student, developed a software program to facilitate the rapid duplication of terrorist propaganda videos for ISIS. He shared this program with people he believed were ISIS supporters, taught them how to use it, and used it to assemble and distribute a large collection of ISIS media. Osadzinski appealed his conviction, arguing that it violated the First Amendment because his actions constituted free expression. He also contended that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with Osadzinski's arguments. The court held that although Osadzinski's actions could be regarded as expressive activity, this activity was coordinated with or directed by ISIS, a known terrorist organization, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. The court also rejected Osadzinski's claim that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute. The court affirmed Osadzinski's conviction, ruling that his conduct fell outside First Amendment protection, clearly violated the material-support statute, and provided a reasonable basis for the jury to return a guilty verdict. View "USA v. Osadzinski" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, made by Shazariyah Hibbett, the defendant, who was sentenced for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The defendant contested his sentence, arguing that the district court had wrongly applied a two-level enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. Hibbett claimed that he was merely a passenger in a vehicle that evaded police, and he did not encourage the driver to flee.The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit found that the district court had not erred. The court noted that evidence, including video footage of the vehicle evading police and statements from the driver, supported the enhancement to Hibbett's sentence. The court also rejected Hibbett's argument that the Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 79.1, which pertains to control of trial exhibits, conflicted with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 55. The court stated that Hibbett had not demonstrated how the application of the local rule to his case caused him any harm.Therefore, the court upheld the district court's judgment, affirming Hibbett's sentence. The court also suggested that Hibbett's concerns about Local Rule 79.1 should be directed to the Advisory Committee for the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. View "USA v. Hibbett" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Tony Rogers, convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter, DAR, appealed his conviction alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Rogers claimed his trial lawyer failed to move for in-camera review of DAR’s medical records, which he believed contained information about her mental health that could have impacted the credibility of her testimony. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Rogers's claim, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied review.Rogers then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, asserting that the state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law. He contended that his trial counsel's failure to obtain DAR’s medical records or at least file a motion for in camera review violated his rights. The district court denied Rogers's petition, concluding that the state court decision did not contravene federal law and that the state court's application of the federal standard to Rogers's case was not unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court. It found that Rogers's counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a motion for in camera review of DAR’s medical records. The court held that such a motion would have been meritless because Rogers could not make the preliminary showing of the records’ materiality required under state law. The court also found that Rogers's claim that he made a plausible showing for in camera review of DAR’s medical records was based on speculation and devoid of context. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. View "Rogers v. Wells" on Justia Law

LaTonya Foxx, along with two others, was charged and convicted for engaging in a fraudulent tax scheme. Foxx pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,261,903 in restitution. The scheme involved filing fraudulent tax returns to generate improper refunds for clients and the defendants. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard Foxx's appeal of the restitution order.The court noted that any power to award restitution must come from a statute. In this case, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act authorizes restitution for wire fraud offenses. The court noted that restitution is limited to the actual losses caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense, and the government must establish those losses by a preponderance of the evidence.Foxx argued that the district court failed to adequately delineate the scheme and make specific findings that the losses included in the restitution derived from the same scheme for which she was convicted. The court found no fatal deficiency in the district court's findings and concluded that Foxx failed to demonstrate a plain error. The court held that Foxx could be ordered to pay restitution for all the losses she caused during the scheme, not just those relating to the specific wire transactions to which she pleaded guilty. The court affirmed the restitution order. View "United States v. Foxx" on Justia Law

The case before the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit involves an appeal by Shamone White, who had been convicted by a jury of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possessing a firearm as a felon. White appealed his firearm convictions, arguing that the prosecution presented inadequate evidence to establish possession. He also argued that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury, allowing them to find him guilty based solely on his admission that he touched the gun a week before his arrest.White was arrested after a vehicle he was a passenger in was pulled over. Inside the vehicle, the police found two bags, one of which White admitted to owning. This bag contained cash and cannabis, while the other bag, which White denied ownership of, contained a firearm, ammunition, scales with cannabis residue, and other items.The court found that the evidence was sufficient for each conviction and that the jury instruction was not misleading. The court highlighted that possession could be either actual or constructive. The court determined that a reasonable jury could infer that White constructively possessed the firearm due to its proximity, the presence of scales with drug residue in the same bag, and the fact that the contents of the two bags collectively formed a complete set of drug trafficking tools. The court also found that White's admission to having previously touched the gun did not mislead the jury. The judgement of the district court was thus affirmed. View "USA v. White" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the defendant, Deny Mitrovich, was indicted for possession of child pornography following a multinational investigation that used a software program to unmask his computer. Mitrovich requested detailed technical information about the software program, which was used by Australian and New Zealand authorities, to aid his defense. However, the United States government did not have this information and was unsuccessful in obtaining it despite repeated efforts. Mitrovich argued that the government was obligated to provide this information under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.The court disagreed with Mitrovich, stating that Rule 16 does not require the production of documents held exclusively by foreign authorities. Furthermore, Mitrovich was unable to demonstrate that the government's inability to provide the requested information resulted in prejudice, a necessary condition to establish a Brady violation. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's decision not to impose sanctions on the government for failure to disclose the requested information.The court also clarified that while the doctrine of constructive possession could extend to co-participants in a joint international investigation under the Due Process Clause, this would not apply if the U.S. lacks the capacity to access or obtain the information through reasonable means. The court also emphasized that mere speculation about the content of the missing information is not sufficient to establish prejudice under Brady. View "United States v. Mitrovich" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, defendant Anthony Bender, Jr. was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a 96-month prison sentence. The conviction stemmed from an incident where, upon fleeing a traffic stop, an officer saw Bender pull a handgun from his sweatpants and toss it. The incident was captured on a dashboard camera, but it didn't show the gun. Bender challenged the government's conduct during his trial, the credibility of the jury's determinations, and the judge's sentencing decision.On appeal, Bender raised three challenges: he claimed the government violated due process by failing to disclose certain video evidence, the video the government did disclose contradicted the arresting officer's testimony, and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court found no errors and affirmed Bender's conviction and sentence.The court determined that the government did not violate due process by failing to disclose the camera footage from another squad car, as it did not exist and couldn't have shown the gun on the ground. The court also found that the evidence of possession, while only based on an officer's testimony, was not "impossible under the laws of nature," and thus, the jury did not err by finding it credible. Lastly, Bender's sentence, which was below the recommended guidelines range, was deemed not unreasonably high. View "United States v. Bender" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois that a tin can filled with energetic powder, sealed with adhesive, and outfitted with a fuse qualifies as a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act.The case involved Jeffrey E. Creek, who was found in possession of such a device, firearms, magazines, ammunition, and a silencer that had been shipped from China. Creek was subsequently charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. At his sentencing hearing, the district court applied a two-level "destructive device" enhancement in calculating his Guidelines range.Creek appealed the decision, arguing that his device was a firework and not a destructive device. However, the appellate court found that the district court correctly classified the device as a bomb under the National Firearms Act due to it having a metal casing, an adhesive seal, explosive powder, and a fuse. It was irrelevant that Creek intended to use the device as a firework, as the device was fully assembled and fit the definition of a destructive device.Creek also challenged the district court's consideration of his criminal history and substance abuse disorder in his sentencing. However, the appellate court dismissed these arguments, stating that the district court correctly exercised its discretion in considering Creek's full criminal history and the risk to public safety. As a result, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "USA v. Creek" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a 240-month prison sentence given to Herbert Holder, a repeat offender convicted on three counts of distributing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Holder appealed the sentence claiming both procedural and substantive error. He argued the district court failed to consider one of his arguments for leniency, specifically, a recent assault he had suffered in jail, and that it did not adequately weigh his mitigation arguments.The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. It found that the district court had adequately addressed Holder's assault in jail. The court engaged in a back-and-forth exchange with Holder about the assault and acknowledged it as one of his mitigation arguments when explaining its sentencing decision. The Court of Appeals also noted that the district court had balanced the seriousness of Holder's offenses and his criminal history against his mitigating factors, including his drug addiction, the loss of his mother, the time elapsed since his prior convictions, and his recent assault in jail.The court concluded that Holder had not provided compelling evidence to overcome the "nearly irrebuttable presumption" that his below-guidelines sentence was reasonable. The Court of Appeals thus upheld the lower court's decision, affirming Holder's sentence. View "United States v. Holder" on Justia Law

The case involves Keenan Seymour, a member of the street gang, Latin Dragon Nation, who pled guilty to a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy charge. Seymour was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment, which was below the Sentencing Guidelines' recommendation. He appealed for re-sentencing on three grounds: (1) questioning certain factual findings, (2) challenging his accountability for a murder, and (3) pointing out the court's failure to discuss unwarranted sentencing disparities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that Seymour was an active participant in the gang and knew about the gang's rules. It found Seymour's arguments against the court's factual findings unpersuasive, stating that the record offered ample support for the findings. The court also rejected Seymour's argument that the district court erred in calculating his offense level by attributing a murder to him, explaining that the murder was foreseeable given Seymour’s gang activities. Lastly, it dismissed Seymour's argument about unwarranted sentencing disparities, stating that the district court had adequately addressed this concern during sentencing.The court held that Seymour's 180-month sentence, which was below the Guidelines, was substantively reasonable and thus affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v. Seymour" on Justia Law