Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, law enforcement officers responded to a drug overdose at the home of Corban Elmore. After securing the scene and prohibiting anyone from entering the house, the officers waited almost eight hours before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant, they searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore, a convicted felon, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Elmore's motion to suppress the firearms, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. The court determined that the officers reasonably seized Elmore’s home because they had probable cause to believe the home contained evidence of drug possession and had good reason to fear that evidence would be destroyed before they could secure a search warrant. The court also concluded that the officers acted reasonably throughout the seizure, finding it appropriate for them to prohibit anyone from entering the home and to delay obtaining a warrant so that the lead detective could focus on his investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the exclusionary rule required suppression of the firearms. The court found that the officers made no effort to reconcile their law-enforcement needs with Elmore’s Fourth Amendment interests in his home and extended the seizure longer than reasonably necessary to diligently secure a warrant. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Elmore" on Justia Law

The case involves Bobby Pena, who pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress child pornography that was recovered on his devices pursuant to a search warrant. Pena argued that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based did not present probable cause and that the federal agents did not act in good faith in executing the search warrant. He also argued that in the absence of probable cause and good faith, evidence of child pornography would not have been inevitably discovered on his electronic devices.The district court denied Pena's motion to suppress, concluding that the magistrate judge had a substantial factual basis to find probable cause. The court found that the file and folder names observed by Agent Kucenski indicated the presence of child pornography. The court also concluded that Pena's suspicious statements to officers supported a finding of probable cause. The court found that Pena's practices with his digital devices and Agent Kucenski's declarations regarding the practices of child pornography collectors supported a finding of probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not err in finding that the affidavit established probable cause and provided a sufficient basis for the search warrant. The court also declined to remand Pena's fraud procurement case for resentencing. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Kimberly Graham, who was convicted for first-degree manslaughter and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. After her convictions became final, she applied for postconviction relief, arguing that she was a Native American and the events took place on a reservation. The state district court granted her relief and vacated her convictions based on the Supreme Court's ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Native Americans within a reservation. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later overruled the precedent that allowed for the application of McGirt to convictions that had already become final. Consequently, the state district court reinstated Graham's convictions.Graham then sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that a liberty interest had arisen from the order vacating her convictions. The court denied her request, stating that the new precedent prevented the application of McGirt to convictions that had become final and that the initial order vacating the convictions was unauthorized under Oklahoma law. Graham then sought habeas relief, claiming that the reinstatement of her convictions had arbitrarily stripped her of her liberty interest. The federal district court agreed with Graham and granted habeas relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief. The court held that regardless of whether the state appeals court had erred, its rejection of the due process claim was at least reasonable based on the facts and Supreme Court precedent. The court concluded that the state appeals court did not unreasonably determine the facts or apply a Supreme Court holding. Therefore, the federal district court should have deferred to the state appeals court. View "Graham v. White" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Mr. Lyndell Daniels, who was detained by law enforcement officers who linked him to a stolen Glock firearm based on his name. Daniels was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Daniels moved to suppress his name as the fruit of an unlawful investigative detention, arguing that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him. The district court agreed with Daniels and granted his motion. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred because there was reasonable suspicion to detain Daniels.The case originated from a near-anonymous call to the Aurora Police Department, expressing concern about three Black men, wearing dark hoodies and jeans, intermittently taking guns in and out of their pockets and getting in and out of a dark SUV. The caller believed they were “getting ready to do something,” but reported no illegality. The police arrived at the scene and detained Daniels, who was standing near the SUV. The officers did not observe any illegal activity or firearms when they arrived.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the totality of the circumstances known to the officer when he detained Daniels did not amount to reasonable suspicion. The court noted that the 911 call, the presence and actions of the SUV, the time of the encounter, and the location of the encounter were not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that Daniels' detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court's grant of Daniels' motion to suppress was proper. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Smith, a non-Indian, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for an act he committed on his property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Smith shot and killed Maria Gallegos, who he saw trying to break into a trailer on his property. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and that Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. The district court denied his motion.Smith's case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court had to decide whether federal criminal jurisdiction extends to land owned by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Smith's property is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and therefore, his crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.Smith also claimed that the 2005 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court disagreed, holding that the 2005 Amendment did not unconstitutionally extend federal criminal jurisdiction to Smith's land. The court reasoned that the 2005 Amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over Smith's land and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.Lastly, Smith contended that the district court erred in declining his request for a two-level sentence reduction for accepting responsibility for his crime. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination, noting that Smith had challenged the factual element of intent at trial, which provided a clear basis to conclude that he did not accept responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Patrick Murphy, was convicted of murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death. The crimes occurred in 1999, but Murphy was not indicted until 2020, following a Supreme Court decision that clarified jurisdictional issues related to crimes committed in Indian Country. Murphy appealed his convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charges, that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the nearly two-decade delay between the murder and the federal prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with Murphy's argument regarding the kidnapping charges. The court held that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it did not show that Murphy held the victim for an appreciable period of time, which is a requirement under the federal kidnapping statute. However, the court rejected Murphy's other two arguments. The court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the prosecution because the crimes with which Murphy was charged are, as a general matter, punishable by death and thus not subject to the general five-year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes. The court also found that Murphy failed to demonstrate that the twenty-year delay in bringing the federal prosecution against him violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.As a result, the court reversed Murphy's kidnapping-related convictions but affirmed his conviction for murder. The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where Colorado Springs Police Officers Robert McCafferty and Christopher Pryor responded to a 911-call placed by Sasha Cronick reporting a drug overdose. During the incident, Officer Pryor questioned Cronick, which escalated into an argument, leading to her arrest for failure to desist and disperse in violation of Colorado Springs Code § 9.2.103. Cronick filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers violated her constitutional rights. The officers asserted qualified immunity, but the district court denied their claim.The district court found several disputes of fact, including whether Officer Pryor issued an order for Cronick to leave the scene, whether Cronick was obstructing the scene, and whether Officer Pryor grabbed Cronick's arm to escort her away or after she had already turned to walk away. The court concluded that these disputes prevented it from finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cronick.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that a reasonable officer under these circumstances would not have arguable probable cause to arrest Cronick for failure to desist or disperse. The court also found that the officers did not have probable cause to conduct a search incident to arrest. The officers failed to articulate specific facts that led them to believe Cronick posed a threat and offered nothing beyond conclusory references to safety. Therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Cronick's clearly established constitutional rights. View "Cronick v. Pryor" on Justia Law

The case involves Kendall Len Burgess, who was convicted for aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving a seven-year-old victim, P.G. The primary issue was whether the district court erred in admitting a fifty-minute video recording of a forensic interview with P.G., conducted three days after the last incident of alleged sexual abuse. The interview was admitted under the residual exception to the rule against hearsay, after P.G., then aged nine, testified inconsistently at trial about the acts committed by Burgess.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma had convicted Burgess based on the evidence presented, including the video recording. The court found that P.G.’s statements during the recorded interview were trustworthy and more probative than any other evidence that could be obtained through reasonable efforts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded interview. The court also rejected Burgess's other arguments, including allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error. The court held that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument did not warrant reversing Burgess's convictions. Therefore, the court affirmed both of Burgess's convictions. View "United States v. Burgess" on Justia Law

In January 2021, John William Thomas Flechs, using the pseudonym “John Breezy,” began conversations on the Kik online messaging platform with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old boy. In fact, Flechs was messaging Sergeant John Haning, a member of the Rogers County, Oklahoma Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Over the next four days, Flechs and the minor discussed sexual topics in graphic detail. After they discussed meeting in person, Flechs asked the minor if he would be going to the skatepark. When Flechs arrived at the skatepark, he handed two Dr. Pepper sodas to an officer posing as the minor. Officers then arrested him.A grand jury indicted Flechs for attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). A petit jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Flechs to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Flechs timely appealed.On appeal, Flechs argued that the trial evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to entice the minor or took a substantial step toward enticement. He also argued that the jury instruction on the term “grooming” violated Federal Rule of Evidence 605, contained an unconstitutional presumption on the element of intent, and misstated the law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Flechs of attempted enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The court also held that the jury instruction on the term “grooming” did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 605, did not contain an unconstitutional presumption on the element of intent, and did not misstate the law. View "United States v. Flechs" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jason Vincent Bradley was convicted on multiple counts related to firearm possession and drug trafficking. He was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on three counts and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the fourth count, followed by three years of supervised release. In 2021, Bradley filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the need to care for his minor children due to his mother's ill health and his own health conditions that increased his risk of serious illness from COVID-19.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Bradley's motion for compassionate release. The court acknowledged Bradley's claims of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release but found that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. Bradley appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred by not considering his proffered extraordinary and compelling reasons for release as part of its § 3553(a) analysis and by not accounting for his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Bradley had waived his first argument by not raising it in the lower court. Regarding his second argument, the court found that the district court had considered Bradley's post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation, and it had provided a rationale for its decision. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Bradley" on Justia Law