Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Davis and Allen pleaded guilty to using a facility of interstate commerce (their cellphones) in a murder-for-hire scheme, 18 U.S.C. 1958(a).The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government could not constitutionally apply the federal murder-for-hire statute to their conduct. Although the statute rests on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, the defendants never left Michigan or even made calls outside the state when committing the murder. At most, some of their intrastate calls required the telephone company to use out-of-state switches. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate the “instrumentalities of interstate commerce” even when used only within a state, and the Sixth Circuit treats an ordinary telephone as one such “instrumentality” within Congress’s control. The court also rejected speedy-trial claims. Before they pleaded guilty, the district court had postponed their trial for nearly four years. But the delay arose in part from their own repeated requests for more time and in part from the COVID-19 pandemic. Both reasons justified the delay. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

In 2017, officers discovered Rogers sitting in a motel room with methamphetamine. Rogers was taken into custody but released. Rogers was indicted in February 2018 for trafficking in two grams or more of methamphetamine. A month later, Rogers was riding in a vehicle that was stopped for a minor traffic violation. Officers realized that Rogers had an active warrant for his arrest for failing to appear following the indictment. A search of the car unearthed a bag of methamphetamine under Rogers’s seat. Rogers pleaded guilty to two state felony drug trafficking offenses (2017 motel incident; 2018 traffic stop) and received concurrent prison terms. He was released in 2020.In 2021, officers again found Rogers in possession of methamphetamine. Rogers pleaded guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a). The probation office recommended that Rogers’s 2017 and 2018 offenses triggered the career offender enhancement for certain defendants with “at least two prior felony convictions” of a controlled substance offense, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a), resulting in a Guidelines range of 262-327 months. Rogers unsuccessfully argued that the two offenses did not count as distinct prior felony convictions because they were not “separated by an intervening arrest,” as required by the Guidelines. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his 240-month sentence. Rogers was arrested (as the term is used in the Guidelines) after the motel incident but before the traffic stop. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

In 1993, Fields, having spent the day drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, fought with Burton, who lived in a duplex owned by Horton. That night, Burton was locked outside. Fields appeared, with a knife, and broke a window in the duplex. Fields and Burton fled before police arrived, having been called by a neighbor. Officers found Fields in Horton’s residence, a block away, in possession of Horton’s jewelry, saying that he had killed Horton, who was dead in her bedroom. At his second trial, the prosecution argued that Fields broke into Horton’s residence through a storm window, murdered her, and started burglarizing the residence before police arrived. To test that theory, the jury conducted an experiment using a flat-tipped knife submitted into evidence to remove a cabinet door in the jury room (in place of the storm window). Satisfied with the outcome, the jurors convicted Fields of intentional murder and sentenced him to death.In 2022, the Sixth Circuit granted Fields conditional habeas corpus relief. On rehearing, en banc, the court affirmed the denial of relief. The Supreme Court has not addressed when jury experiments of this type violate state or federal law. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act habeas relief is unavailable unless a state court has unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). View "Fields v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Jones was convicted of robbery in Indiana, Kentucky, and federal courts. Jones’s Kentucky plea deal agreed to a commencement date for Jones’s accrual of time-served credits, not when officers actually took Jones into custody, as would ordinarily be the case, but on an earlier date. The sentencing court failed to adopt the plea agreement and ordered the Department of Corrections to calculate Jones’s time-served credit in accordance with “this judgment,” which made no mention of the negotiated agreement, and “the law.” The court did not provide Jones the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Jones did not appeal or seek correction of his sentence. Jones unsuccessfully asked prison administrators to honor the plea agreement’s time-served provision; doing so would have violated the judgment of conviction. Jones asked the sentencing court for clarification. The court ratified the administrators’ calculations. Jones did not appeal. The court subsequently instructed that Jones be given credit in accordance with the agreement. Jones was then released.Jones filed suit, alleging that Kentucky prison administrators violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through their alleged deliberate indifference to the prospect of incarcerating him beyond the length of his sentence. The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of the defendants’ qualified immunity motions. The defendants—state corrections officials—neither caused nor contributed to Jones’s over-incarceration nor could they unilaterally remedy the matter, which was dictated by court orders. View "Jones v. Bottom" on Justia Law

After being stopped for a broken headlight, Akima was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated based on his performance on a three-part field sobriety exam and a preliminary breathalyzer test. Arresting Officer Peca determined that he failed the assessments but had both administered the field sobriety tests improperly and misread the breathalyzer. Akima blew a blood alcohol content of 0.02, well below the legal limit of 0.08; Peca read the result as 0.22 and arrested him, causing Akima, a Japanese citizen, to lose his work visa and be deported. A blood test confirmed the Officer’s error. Akima sued, alleging constitutional violations. Peca moved to dismiss, citing qualified immunity.The district court permitted Akima’s constitutional claims to proceed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Officer Peca lacked probable cause to believe Akima’s license was not in his immediate possession or that he was intoxicated. A reasonable jury could find that while driving without any apparent difficulty, Akima was stopped for a broken headlight; perhaps due to evident communication barriers, Akima took the atypical step of exiting his vehicle. Akima acknowledged he had been drinking “just a little bit,” registered 0.02 on a breathalyzer, exhibited a temperate and responsive demeanor, and maintained steady speech and gait. He completed three field sobriety tests. View "Akima v. Peca" on Justia Law

In 2019, Flint, Michigan officers recovered ammunition and three firearms from Jamison’s suspected residence. Jamison was charged as a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The government referenced the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (ACCA) in the indictment. Jamison pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.At sentencing, the district court found that Jamison had prior convictions that were violent felonies under the ACCA: a 1994 conviction as a juvenile in Michigan for second-degree murder and for felony firearm; a 2011 Michigan conviction for assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder and for felony firearm; and a 2012 federal conviction for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his 188-month sentence. Michigan’s felony-firearm statute is a “violent felony” under the ACCA when a juvenile is convicted of that offense for possessing a firearm while committing second-degree murder because the second-degree murder element requires a level of culpability almost indistinguishable from purposeful or knowing, and necessarily involves the use of force. View "United States v. Jamison" on Justia Law

During his booking at Kenton County Detention Center, Grote could not complete paperwork while standing nor be photographed due to his agitated state. By the time he was examined by LPN Brand, Grote was constantly shaking and twitching and was covered in sweat. With officers, Grote denied that he had taken any substances but told Brand that he had taken a half gram of methamphetamine. Grote’s oxygen level was 89 percent; he was hyperventilating. Brand was unable to take any other vital signs. Brand does not recall communicating to anyone her assessment that Grote was detoxing. Deputies conducted sporadic checks on Grote in his cell before an inmate reported that Grote was unconscious and foaming at the mouth. Grote suffered multiple cardiac arrests and did not regain neurological function before dying. A doctor testified that Grote’s overdose would have been obvious to a layperson and that the situation required urgent medical care. Grote had a blood methamphetamine concentration 14 times higher than “the lowest reported lethal dose.”The KCDC defendants testified received no training on recognizing signs of an overdose or detox and could not call 911 immediately in the event of an inmate overdose, but instead were to notify shift managers. The Sixth Circuit reversed, in part, the dismissal of a section 1983 suit. A jury could find that the medical provider was deliberately indifferent to Grote’s need for medical attention, but not that the deputies acted unconstitutionally. View "Grote v. Kenton County, Kentucky" on Justia Law

James picked up Herald and Hickerson in a silver car. Driving around, the men got high and plotted to rob the Contreras home. At a gas station, Hickerson picked up black ski masks. Herald went home. Hours later, two armed, masked men invaded the Contreras home and shot Adrian five times, killing him. Adrian’s brothers returned fire, hitting Hickerson. The other intruder escaped in a silver car. Around 4 a.m. that day, James arrived at his friends’ house in a silver car, telling them he had attempted a robbery with Hickerson and that Hickerson had been shot. James later told Herald that he “left Johnny” and had thrown his gun in a lake. Police found a black ski mask two blocks from the Contreras house, with James’s DNA on it.James was convicted of felony murder, home invasion, assault, and firearm offenses. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, finding that Herald’s testimony was supported by “the location of the weapon” and that a “weapon” found near the crime scene had James’s DNA on it. No evidence supported those findings. Police never found the second intruder’s gun and did not find James's DNA on any weapons. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of James’s federal habeas petition. Even serious errors do not warrant habeas relief by themselves. Petitioners need to show a violation of the Constitution or federal law. James has not. View "James v. Corrigan" on Justia Law

Taylor pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 400 or more grams of fentanyl, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846; and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, section 841(a). The PSR recommended sentencing enhancements for maintaining premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12); being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants, 3B1.1(a); and using fear, impulse, friendship, affection, or some combination thereof to involve another individual in the illegal purchase, sale, transport, or storage of a controlled substance, 2D1.1(b)(16)(A).Over Taylor’s objections and following testimony from several witnesses, the district court applied those enhancements, calculated his Guidelines range to be 324-405 months, and sentenced him to a prison term of 385 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Taylor stipulated to facts concerning his connection to his co-conspirators’ residences that provided a foundation for the application of the drug house enhancement. The court noted testimony about Taylor’s role atop his distribution network and that he “essentially blackmailed” at least one participant. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Zakhari, in a program to become a cardiothoracic surgeon, engaged in online sexually explicit conversations with a profile (boredcrbgirl) created by a detective, claiming to be a 15-year-old girl. He received an image of an officer. Zakhari sent an Uber to take boredcrbgirl to his apartment for sex. The officer arrived at Zakhari’s residence in the Uber. Zakhari was arrested. The detective interrogated him after giving the Miranda warnings. Zakhari said, “I can answer some questions and then maybe call.” After responding to basic questions, he said: My sister’s an attorney. Asked if he wanted to call her, Zakhari said “yeah,” then paused. The detective interjected that such a call would end the questioning. Zakhari continued to answer questions and made incriminating statements.Zakhari was convicted of attempting to persuade a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), attempting to transmit an obscene image to a minor, section 1470, and attempting to produce child pornography sections 2251(a)(e). Zakhari unsuccessfully moved to suppress his statements. The court declined to strike the third charge on grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness.The Sixth Circuit vacated the convictions. The suppression motion should have been granted. The factual context shows Zakhari had “lawyerly assistance” in mind in wanting to call his sister and the invocation was not ambiguous. The court abused its discretion in failing to require the government to substantiate its explanations concerning Count 3. Zakhari showed enough to presume vindictiveness. View "United States v. Zakhari" on Justia Law