Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Esposito sexually assaulted and abused his adopted son from Guatemala for years, beginning when his son was about seven years old. Esposito documented his repetitive, shocking, and horrific abuse in videos and photographic images which he shared online. He also downloaded other child pornography in hundreds of thousands of images and videos.Without a plea agreement, Esposito pleaded guilty to 20 counts of sexually exploiting a minor, each reflecting a different instance of abuse documented in videos and images, and to one count of possessing child pornography. His PSR calculated an offense level of 51, which defaulted to a maximum of 43 under the Sentencing Guidelines. Esposito had no criminal history. The resulting Guidelines range was life in prison, but none of the crimes of which Esposito was convicted had a statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The defense suggested 420 months because Esposito was already in his mid-fifties.The district court concluded that a de facto life sentence was appropriate and imposed sentences totaling 200 years. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Esposito’s argument that the court should have considered his criminal conduct, history, and characteristics as a whole, determined an appropriate overall punishment, and then set the sentences for each count to equal that overall punishment, rather than imposing sentences for each count, then adding them together. View "United States v. Esposito" on Justia Law

Black, a corrupt Chicago police officer, participated in a scheme to take resell drugs and weapons found during police work. In 2007, Black was convicted of conspiracies to engage in racketeering, drug distribution, and robbery, and two counts of using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). Black was sentenced to a total of 40 years’ imprisonment.The 2018 First Step Act significantly lowered the mandatory minimums for 924(c) convictions. Today, Black’s mandatory minimum sentence would be 10 years. In 2020, Black sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3852(c)(1)(A), arguing that his cancer and chemotherapy meant he faced an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. The court denied the motion, reasoning that Black had not shown that his cancer was terminal or chronic or that he was at risk of contracting COVID-19 and that the section 3553(a) factors weighed against early release. The Seventh Circuit subsequently held that the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” issue was, under the First Step Act, no longer governed by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements that the district court relied upon.The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the denial of Black’s motion. The district court did not consider statutory changes, reflecting a substantially different view of section 924(c) violations; the alternative 3553(a) rationale does not render the error harmless. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

During heavy snow, Lieutenant McAuly approached a car that was far off the roadway. Lao lowered the driver's window and stated that a tow truck was on its way. According to McAuly, Lao displayed nervousness and was acting as though he wanted McAuly to leave while speaking sharply to his passenger, Chang. Their driver’s licenses revealed extensive recent felony criminal histories. Both were under supervised release for methamphetamine convictions.Both consented to pat-down searches. McAuly discovered that under her shirt Chang was carrying a locked, portable gun safe. Chang denied both ownership of the safe and knowledge of its contents. Through the car windows, McAuly saw a razor blade and a piece of cardboard that he associated with dividing drugs. Wisconsin Act 79 authorizes an officer, without consent, a warrant, or probable cause, to search any property under the control of a person who is under court supervision if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. McAuly found the key, opened the gun safe, and found what was determined to be 75.6 grams of methamphetamine and a digital scale. A later search revealed a firearm and ammunition. After receiving Miranda warnings, Chang declared that everything in the safe belonged to her, although she was unable to describe its contents. Both were charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Lao was also charged as a felon in possession of a firearm.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denials of the defendants’ motion to suppress. Although the officer’s hunch alone was not sufficient justification for the seizure, other factors provided the reasonable suspicion necessary. Chang’s statements did not fall within any hearsay exception and could not be admitted if Chang chose to invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. View "United States v. Lao" on Justia Law

Danville Officer Crawley sought a warrant to search Woodfork’s home. Crawley testified under oath, identifying Woodfork as the target of the request, stating that Woodfork had sold crystal methamphetamine in a controlled buy to a confidential source (CS) that day. Officers had searched the SC before and after that buy and surveilled the transaction, which was recorded. Crawley had relied on the CS “multiple times” and found him “reliable.” The officers attempted to set up a second controlled buy, using another reliable CS. Woodfork had insisted that the CS come to Woodfork’s home, which was described by naming an intersection, understood to be 1220 North Franklin Street.The judge issued a search warrant for Woodfork’s North Franklin home. Officers discovered methamphetamine and a firearm. Woodfork moved to quash the warrant and or to suppress the evidence, arguing that he was entitled to a "Franks" hearing and suppression because Crawley misled the county judge regarding the identification of his home and by omitting details about the CS's criminal histories.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Woodfork’s motion. Crawley and the judge were not simply relying on the uncorroborated word of the CS; a controlled buy, properly executed, is generally a reliable indicator of the presence of illegal drug activity. The omission of information about the sources’ backgrounds, criminal histories, or motives does not change the probable cause determination. Crawley testified; the court could assess his credibility and ask questions. View "United States v. Woodfork" on Justia Law

Huerta was shot and killed in a parking lot in 2009. Huerta had been drinking with his uncle, Rojas, when a car pulled up, an occupant fired at Huerta, and the car sped away. Officers focused on Villavicencio‐Serna; his girlfriend’s father had reported her missing the morning of Huerta’s murder. The girlfriend eventually stated that she was with Villavicencio‐Serna on that night, that when she woke up, Villavicencio‐Serna stated that he “took care of business,” and that Villavicencio‐Serna had previously stated that he was prepared to shoot Huerta. She later changed her story, claiming that she was in the car with Villavicencio‐Serna’s friends, Daddio and Rogers, when Villavicencio‐Serna leaned out the window and shot Huerta. She later said that Villavicencio‐Serna reached over her to shoot. Daddio recounted that the four drove around the parking lot before Villavicencio‐Serna shouted at Huerta then fired shots. Rogers repeatedly stated that he knew nothing about the shooting, then changed his story, stating that Villavicencio‐Serna shot Huerta. Their stories were somewhat inconsistent.All three recanted at trial, insisting that the officers scared them into implicating Villavicencio‐Serna; the officers’ version of the events was fed to them while the recording equipment was off. Allegedly unprompted, Rojas had identified Daddio’s car, a silver Cadillac, although his original story referred to a dark car.Villavicencio‐Serna was convicted of first‐degree murder. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his federal petition for habeas corpus relief while expressing concerns about the “troubling” inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence. View "Villavicencio-Serna v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Jarigese was the vice president of Castle Construction and the president of its successor, Tower, when he signed three contracts for public construction projects. Each contract was designated by Markham’s mayor, Webb, as “design-build” projects, not subject to a public bidding process. Webb invited only one company to submit a proposal for a new city hall, a senior living facility, and the renovation and expansion of a park district building. Webb signed each contract on behalf of Markham. Webb solicited bribes, which were paid to KAT Remodeling. Webb later testified that he had formed KAT years earlier and used its bank account as a repository for bribes. KAT never performed work of any kind. Jarigese hand-delivered bribes, by check and by cash. Webb understood that Jarigese had created an invoice from KAT to disguise the nature of the payment. Evidence at trial showed that Webb solicited bribes from others, using the same pattern.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Jarigese’s convictions for nine counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1346, and one count of bribery, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2). Evidence of Webb’s solicitation of other bribes was not evidence of “other bad acts” but rather was directly relevant to proving the charged scheme. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and there was no evidence of unwarranted discrepancy with respect to Jarigese’s 41-month sentence. View "United States v. Jarigese" on Justia Law

Ademiju immigrated to the U.S. in 2001 and had a green card. In 2011, he became involved in a scheme to defraud Medicare. He pled guilty to healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347, and stipulated to a $1.5 million loss amount, acknowledging that “pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status” and that he “affirms that he wants to plead guilty … even if the consequence is his automatic removal.” At sentencing, Ademiju personally acknowledged that his ability to stay in this country was not assured. His counsel told the court, “I’m not an immigration specialist … But it’s my understanding that … any sentence of less than one year … he would be at least eligible for a waiver.” Apparently, no one knew that statement was incorrect. The district court sentenced Ademiju to 11 months’ imprisonment plus $1.5 million in restitution.Ademiju was released from federal prison and transferred into ICE custody; he retained an immigration attorney who informed him that his offense of conviction and the stipulated loss amount subjected him to mandatory deportation. Ademiju filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction because his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled because he received incorrect advice from an attorney about his options for recourse within the limitations period and could not have discovered the problem himself due to the inadequacy of his prison’s law library. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his motion; Ademiju has not met the high standard for equitable tolling. View "Ademiju v. United States" on Justia Law

Jones spent more than 10 years in prison before the Seventh Circuit granted his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition, finding that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. After Jones was freed, he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Madison County, Indiana deputy prosecutors Koester and Kopp, in their individual capacities, arguing that they maliciously prosecuted him in violation of his due process rights when they filed an untimely amendment to his charges and secured a conviction. He also alleged that Madison County Prosecutor Cummings, an elected official, adopted and followed an official policy of flouting state-law limitations on amendments to charges. He requested $50 million in general damages for his confinement, compensatory damages for past and future physical and emotional injuries, and attorneys’ fees.The district court dismissed the action, finding that Cummings was a state official, so the suit against him was in substance one against the state. The state is not a “person” that can be sued under section 1983. Jones’s suit against the prosecutors failed because of the absolute immunity prosecutors enjoy when they are acting as advocates. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Jones was undoubtedly injured by his wrongful imprisonment but that does not mean that he has a remedy against any particular actor. View "Jones v. Cummings" on Justia Law

In 1982, Thompson was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit burglary for his role in the home invasion and killing of the Hilborns. After a remand for resentencing, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed his sentence of two consecutive 60-year terms for the murders and a consecutive 30-year term for the conspiracy to commit burglary. Thompson filed a post-conviction petition that languished until 2015; the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief.Thompson filed a federal habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move to suppress Thompson’s request for a lawyer and his post-request statements, failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument remarks referencing Thompson’s request for a lawyer, and failing to present the prosecutor’s remarks in Thompson’s direct appeal. Following a remand, the district court dismissed the petition.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is not “substantially” likely that the result of Thompson’s trial or appeal would have been different but for his counsel’s actions. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony were consistent with testimony by his co-conspirator, Dillon, implicating Thompson, including blood on Thompson’s jeans and gloves that law enforcement recovered from his closet shortly after the murders; the hunting knife found in Thompson’s trunk, freshly cleaned and oiled; Thompson’s presence with Dillon at a laundromat just after the murders; and the forensic pathologist’s testimony about the Hillborns's stab wounds. The evidence against Thompson was “overwhelming.” View "Thompson v. Vanihel" on Justia Law

Hogue was charged with receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A). As a condition of his pretrial release, special monitoring software was installed on his computer. The software caught him downloading child pornography again and detected his repeated efforts to delete the downloaded files from his hard drive. A superseding indictment charged Hogue with the original count; a second count of receiving child pornography for the downloads while on pretrial release; and destruction of evidence with intent to obstruct an FBI investigation. The crime of receiving child pornography is punishable by a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment. Count 2 added 18 U.S.C. 3147(1), which requires a consecutive term of up to 10 years for a crime committed while on pretrial release. Hogue pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, below the U.S.S.G. range.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that its review was limited to correcting plain error, requiring Hogue to establish a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. Although the judge mistakenly stated the maximum penalty on Count 2 given the 3147(1) enhancement, Hogue has not asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty but for this error. The record confirms his understanding of the offense and an adequate factual basis for the plea. The court rejected an argument that the judge improperly relied on an investigator’s testimony about his risk of committing a sex offense against a child. View "United States v. Hogue" on Justia Law