Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A 911 call, reported that “the people that live behind me” were “yelling and what sounds like him hitting something.” Officers Curtis and Gray responded to the address, wearing activated body cameras. Not seeing or hearing anything amiss outside, they knocked. Reed answered the door. Gray asked, “Do you mind stepping out here and talking to me for a second?” Reed asked, “you got a warrant?” Gray replied, “nope,” explaining that “somebody called and said that somebody was fighting.” Reed said, “Wasn’t here.” After additional discussion, Gray stated they needed to talk to other adults in the house; “if not, then we can come in … exigent circumstances.” Reed closed his door. The officers kicked the door down. Curtis stepped inside, drew his firearm, pointed it at Reed’s head. then put the gun away, and pulled Reed outside. Gray pushed Reed against the car and patted him down. Other officers arrived and spoke with Reed’s family. Satisfied that everyone in Reed’s house was safe, the officers documented the damage to Reed’s door and left.The district court dismissed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against Campbell County and against the officers in their official capacities; dismissed a Terry claim as “duplicative” of a false arrest claim; dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and declined to award the officers qualified immunity on the individual capacity unlawful-entry, excessive-force, and false-arrest claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that the officers violated clearly established constitutional rights. View "Reed v. Campbell County, Kentucky" on Justia Law

Jones, who was on supervised release, was arrested after he fired shots outside his house and fled inside. He pled guilty to possessing a stolen firearm. The district court imposed the agreed-upon 10-year sentence, which was above the 77-96 month Guidelines range but below the 15-year mandatory minimum that would have applied if he had been classified as an armed career criminal. The court rejected arguments that he should not receive a sentence enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight and challenging the use of his prior controlled substance offense under Michigan state law to increase his base offense level–claiming Michigan’s controlled-substance statute is broader than the federal definition of the relevant substances. Separately, Jones faced resentencing on his supervised release; the firearm offense violated his supervised release conditions. A different district court imposed a 24-month sentence—half to run concurrently with his firearm conviction and half to run consecutively.The Third Circuit affirmed. The district courts properly calculated Jones’s Guidelines range for the firearm offense and imposed a reasonable sentence for the supervised-release violation. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

From 2009-2015, Hofstetter managed pain clinics in Florida and Tennessee. Hofstetter also co-owned and managed an additional clinic in Tennessee. Clemons, Newman, and Womack were employed as nurse practitioners at these clinics. All four defendants were convicted of maintaining drug-involved premises. Hofstetter was also convicted of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering. Hofstetter was sentenced to 400 months in prison, Clemons to 42 months, Newman to 40 months, and Womack to 30 months. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided “Ruan” (2022), clarifying the applicable mens rea for an unlawful distribution charge, and remanded.The Sixth Circuit again affirmed. Under Ruan, it is insufficient for the government to prove that a prescription was “in fact” not authorized; the government must prove the defendant subjectively knew or intended that the prescription was unauthorized. The district court’s instructions were not plainly erroneous regarding the drug-involved-premises and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense charges. Taken as a whole, the jury instructions made clear that the jury had to find that the defendants knowingly opened the clinics for the purpose of illegally distributing Schedule II controlled substances. View "United States v. Hofstetter" on Justia Law

Velasquez was convicted of conspiracy to use interstate commerce to commit murder-for-hire, 18 U.S.C. 1958(a), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841. The district court increased Velasquez’s offense level by four levels to 37 because “the offense involved the offer or the receipt of anything of pecuniary value for undertaking the murder” U.S.S.G. 2A1.5(b), determined Velasquez to be a career offender, varied downward on criminal history, reached sentencing range of 262–327 months, and ordered Velasquez to serve a 120-month sentence on the murder-for-hire conviction (the statutory maximum) concurrent with a 262-month sentence on the cocaine-distribution conviction. The Sixth Circuit rejected challenges to the convictions and upheld the four-level increase, but agreed that Velasquez should not have been considered a “career offender.”On remand, the district court denied a reduction under U.S.S.G 2X1.1(b)(2), which provides for a three-level decrease “unless the defendant or a co-conspirator completed [or was about to complete] all the acts the conspirators believed necessary on their part for the successful completion of the substantive offense” and sentenced Velasquez to 120 months for Count 1 and 240 months for Count 2, to be served concurrently. The Third Circuit held that denial of the reduction was correct; a crossreference in U.S.S.G. 2X1.1(c) provides that when the “conspiracy is expressly covered by another offense guideline section, apply that guideline section.” The guideline that covers Velasquez’s case is U.S.S.G. 2A1.5, which expressly covers conspiracy to commit murder. View "United States v. Rios-Velasquez" on Justia Law

Hill and Combs kidnapped 12-year-old Fife, beat Fife, raped him in multiple ways, strangled him, bit his genitals, sodomized him, and burned him. Fife’s father found him in a field. Fife died days later. Several witnesses testified that Hill was around the crime scene. The state introduced Hill’s confession that he had watched Combs beat and rape Fife. There was physical evidence. One witness testified that Hill had raped her in the same wooded area and another testified that Hill had raped her multiple times. Hill was sentenced to death in 1986. Ohio courts rejected Hill’s appeal and state habeas petition.Hill’s 1996 federal habeas petition challenged the denial of expert assistance on bitemark evidence. While an appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided “Atkins.” On remand, the state court determined that Hill was not intellectually disabled; his death sentence stood. Following a remand by the Supreme Court and various Sixth Circuit decisions, Hill sought a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence,” a report from the American Board of Forensic Odontology that suggested using bitemarks to identify a specific individual might not be reliable. Ohio courts held that there was “no probability” that a new trial would lead to a “different outcome” because the state had proffered so much other evidence of guilt.Hill’s second federal habeas petition argued that the state trial court violated his due process rights by not properly conducting a materiality review of the bitemark evidence. The Sixth Circuit characterized Hill’s petition as “second or successive,” so Hill was required to meet the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). Under Hill's interpretation, "Hmost convictions involving forensic evidence would never be final." View "In re: Hill" on Justia Law

Thomas-Mathews pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and to two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Thomas-Mathews objected to the PSR’s “weight attribution to cocaine base versus cocaine as an unwarranted disparity” and requested the use of a 1:1 ratio. Thomas-Mathews also alleged he experienced a challenging childhood, including food insecurity and physical and sexual abuse by his uncle. His juvenile convictions include criminal sexual conduct, larceny, and drug possession. His adult convictions include drug offenses, domestic violence, and perjury in connection with a murder investigation. While serving his sentences for these crimes, Thomas-Mathews appeared to have turned his life around when he got out of prison in 2017, becoming involved with his children and “getting a barbershop.” The pandemic hurt Thomas-Mathews’ career as a barber and he “got back into [his] old style of living.”The Sixth Circuit vacated his sentence of 60 months for the drug count, and two 60-month consecutive sentences for each of the gun counts as procedurally unreasonable. The court did not acknowledge the scope of its discretion concerning the crack-to-powder ratio and did not address specifically that failing to use the 1:1 ratio would result in an excessive sentence for Thomas-Mathews. The court’s discussion of section 3553(a)'s factors was limited to Thomas-Mathews’ criminal history without addressing Thomas-Mathews’ personal history and characteristics. View "United States v. Thomas-Mathews" on Justia Law

In 2019-2020, Cedrid, Smith, and Hoskins defrauded 20 different banks and their customers by purchasing identification information that hackers stole from financial institutions, then accessing the victim’s bank online. A conspirator would call the victim, “spoofing” the bank's phone number, and pretend to be concerned about suspicious activity, then tell the victim they would send an identification code to verify the victim’s identity. The co-conspirator would then trigger the “forgot my password” function to send a code to the victim. When the victim provided that code to the conspirator, the conspirator could change the password and gain full access to the victim’s account.to withdraw funds. The three were charged with bank fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 18 U.S.C. 1028A.The PSRs determined an actual loss of $1,171,673.97 and an Intended loss of $2,158,297.80. The district court overruled Smith’s objection to some of the conduct included in her offense level because she was not directly involved with several of the banks. The court sentenced Smith to 36 months for the conspiracy charge and to a consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft. Hoskins was sentenced to 48 months for the conspiracy charge. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred by attributing to each defendant the conduct of others involved in the conspiracy, by including intended-loss amounts in Hoskins’s offense level, and in ordering Smith to pay all the restitution in full. View "United States v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

In 2006, Soto’s wife reported the death of their two-year-old son. Soto admitted that the child’s death was his fault but described it as an accident: he said he had been driving an ATV around his property and had run over the toddler by mistake. Soto agreed to plead guilty to child endangerment in exchange for the dismissal of a manslaughter charge. Soto served his five-year sentence and left prison in 2011. In 2016, Soto went to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office and confessed that he had actually beaten his son to death and had staged the ATV accident to cover up his crime. Soto was charged with aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence.Soto claimed double jeopardy in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Jeopardy attaches to an “offence” under the Double Jeopardy Clause, only when a court or jury has the power to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence as to that “offence.” During Soto’s 2006 plea hearing, jeopardy attached to the child-endangerment charge once the court accepted Soto’s guilty plea for that charge; the court lacked power to determine Soto’s guilt or innocence of the manslaughter charge. Jeopardy never attached to that charge. View "Soto v. Siefker" on Justia Law

Pembrook, Johnson, and two others robbed two stores at gunpoint. Each was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), possession of a firearm by a felon, 922(g), and two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 924(c). The 924(c) counts carried a combined 32-year additional mandatory-minimum sentence: seven years for the first count and an additional 25 years for the second.The court granted a downward variance and sentenced each defendant to 33 years: one year each for the first three counts, to run concurrently, plus the mandatory 32 years. The Supreme Court remanded in light of “Davis” (2019), which found 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The parties stipulated that new PSRs would exclude the 25-year additional sentence for the second 924(c) count, and revise the defendants’ personal information, including their conduct during incarceration. The court added a five-level enhancement for brandishing a firearm, which applied only after the second 924(c) charge was excluded, U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), and a two-level enhancement for physical restraint of the victims, 2B3.1(b)(4)(b), then resentenced Pembrook to 156 months in prison and Johnson to 168 months.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. This case involved a general remand for a de novo resentencing; the parties were entitled to raise new issues at resentencing, even issues previously waived or forfeited. The district court properly determined that the facts of the robbery satisfy that enhancement. View "United States v. Pembrook" on Justia Law

While facing charges for conspiracy to engage in human trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 1594(c), Pennington improperly communicated with witnesses in the case and was charged with witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1). The 1594(c) conspiracy charge was dismissed when Pennington pleaded guilty to the witness-tampering charge. The district court applied the U.S. Sentencing Guideline that corresponds with his witness-tampering conviction, which prompted cross-references to other guidelines, including U.S.S.G. 2G1.1, which applies to certain human-trafficking offenses and supplies two possible base-offense levels. Subsection (a)(1) provides a base-offense level of “34, if the offense of conviction is 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1)”; subsection (a)(2) provides a base-offense level of “14, otherwise.” Although Pennington had not been convicted under 1591(b)(1), the district court used subsection (a)(1)’s base-offense level of 34 as its starting point and imposed a 29-month sentence.The Sixth Circuit vacated his sentence. Pennington is currently serving his term of supervised release. The district court plainly erred by misinterpreting and miscalculating the Guidelines. Pennington has not been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1) and no guideline permits us to treat him as if he had been; U.S.S.G. 2G1.1(a)(2) provides his base-offense level, 14. View "United States v. Pennington" on Justia Law