Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who, after years of being teased and picked on by his housemates, fatally stabbed one of them during a night of drinking and verbal taunting. The defendant, a member of the Choctaw Nation, lived with several relatives in Oklahoma. On the night in question, the group engaged in typical banter and name-calling, with the victim and another housemate calling the defendant derogatory names, including in the Choctaw language. After retreating to his room, the defendant emerged with a knife, confronted the victim, and, following a struggle, stabbed him multiple times, resulting in the victim’s death. The defendant admitted to the stabbing during a 9-1-1 call, expressing remorse and attributing his actions to the ongoing verbal abuse.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The defendant did not dispute that he killed the victim but argued that he acted in the heat of passion, seeking a conviction for voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree murder. The district court, over the government’s objection, instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. At the government’s request, and over the defendant’s objection, the court also instructed the jury that “words alone” cannot negate malice aforethought and create heat of passion. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the “words alone” instruction was legally correct and whether it improperly affected the jury’s deliberations. The court held that the instruction accurately reflected longstanding legal principles: mere words, no matter how aggravating or insulting, are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute adequate provocation for heat of passion manslaughter under federal law. The court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Sockey" on Justia Law

Lavellous Purcell operated a commercial sex business from 2012 to 2017, recruiting women from across the United States to work as prostitutes and coordinating their interstate travel. He resided primarily on Long Island, New York, and the women involved traveled to at least fourteen states. The government’s case focused on documentary evidence regarding one victim, Samantha Vasquez, showing her work for Purcell in various locations, but not in the Southern District of New York.Purcell was indicted in 2018 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on five counts related to sex trafficking. After a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, his conviction on Count One (enticement to engage in unlawful sexual activity) was reversed for lack of venue in the Southern District of New York, but his conviction on Count Two (transporting a victim in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution) was affirmed because his appellate counsel did not challenge venue for that count. The district court reimposed the original sentence after remand. Purcell then filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied, finding appellate counsel’s performance reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the denial of Purcell’s habeas petition de novo. The court held that Purcell’s appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge venue as to Count Two, as the omitted argument was significant and obvious and likely would have resulted in reversal of that conviction. The court declined to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine and found Purcell was prejudiced by counsel’s omission. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Purcell’s § 2255 petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Purcell v. United States" on Justia Law

On June 1, 2017, Travis Ridley was fatally shot in a breezeway at an apartment complex in DeKalb County, Georgia. The State alleged that Ridley had planned to purchase a large quantity of marijuana from Abel Asmelash and Edward Tavarez, but that Asmelash and Tavarez intended to rob him. During the incident, Tavarez shot Ridley while Asmelash took a bag of money from Ridley’s girlfriend, Erica Shavers, who was the State’s primary eyewitness. The prosecution presented surveillance video, cell-phone records, and Shavers’s testimony to support its case. Asmelash’s defense was that he was not present at the scene and offered an alibi, but did not call his listed alibi witnesses at trial.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Asmelash, Tavarez, and Jeanmarie Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s case was severed, and Tavarez was tried and convicted in January 2019; his convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Tavarez v. State, 319 Ga. 480 (2024). Asmelash’s case was severed during Tavarez’s trial due to issues with redaction of Tavarez’s statement. Asmelash was tried separately in May 2019 and found guilty on all charges, including malice murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to life without parole and additional consecutive sentences. After a motion for new trial was denied by the trial court in April 2025, Asmelash appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Asmelash’s claims that the trial court erred in denying the jury’s request to review surveillance video and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an alibi witness. The Court held that any error in denying the jury’s request was harmless, as the video was cumulative of other evidence. The Court also found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to call the alibi witness, as her testimony conflicted with other evidence and was not compelling. The Court affirmed Asmelash’s convictions. View "ASMELASH v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Richard Merritt, an attorney, was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime after the death of his mother, Shirley Merritt, in February 2019. Prior to the murder, Merritt had pled guilty to multiple theft-related felonies and was sentenced to prison, but was released on GPS monitoring pending his surrender. On the day he was to report to prison, Merritt met his ex-wife and daughter at a doctor’s appointment, returned to his mother’s house, and later left in her car with both their cell phones. He cut off his GPS monitor and disappeared. Shirley was found dead the next day, having suffered stab wounds and blunt-force trauma. Merritt was apprehended months later living under a false identity in Tennessee. At trial, Merritt claimed two unknown men killed his mother, but the jury rejected this account.The Superior Court of DeKalb County held a jury trial in May 2023, resulting in Merritt’s conviction on all counts. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder and a consecutive five years for possession of a knife. Other counts were vacated or merged. Merritt filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing in January 2025.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Merritt’s appeal. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that Merritt failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel regarding cross-examination, closing argument, or other trial strategies. Claims regarding shackling and an alleged Brady violation were deemed waived. The court found no cumulative error and affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Georgia’s judgment was to affirm Merritt’s convictions. View "MERRITT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns the shooting death of Darcy Jones at a nightclub in South Fulton, Georgia, on November 14, 2020. Tianvye Stitts, who worked as an unarmed security guard at the club, was present that night. Testimony at trial established that Stitts was seen with a gun, and after gunshots were heard, witnesses observed him exiting the restroom immediately after Jones, who had been shot, and then fleeing the scene in a Jeep. Additional evidence included Stitts’s erratic flight from the club, his subsequent attempt to evade law enforcement, and his use of a false name upon arrest. The prosecution’s case included testimony from Darrence Morgan, another security guard, who admitted to giving Stitts a gun before the shooting.A Fulton County grand jury indicted Stitts on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses. At trial in May 2023, a jury found Stitts guilty on all counts. The Superior Court of Fulton County sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder, along with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other offenses. The court later merged the aggravated assault count with the malice murder count. Stitts’s motion for a new trial was denied after an evidentiary hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Stitts’s claims, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the lack of an accomplice-corroboration jury instruction, the giving of an Allen charge, the absence of a specific instruction on impeachment by prior felony conviction, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the malice murder conviction, that any error in failing to give an accomplice-corroboration charge did not affect the outcome, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that Stitts’s counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "STITTS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Darell Montrell Trotter was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. Although the indictment alleged that his conduct caused the death of an individual, DS, the plea agreement did not include this allegation. The agreement stipulated that Trotter would be sentenced within the applicable range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, but acknowledged that the court was not bound by these stipulations. The presentence investigation report calculated a Guidelines range of 135–168 months, and recommended a sentence at the bottom of the range. Trotter initially objected to the report but withdrew his objections and agreed with the recommended sentence. At sentencing, the Government presented testimony from DS’s father and argued that the Guidelines underrepresented the severity of Trotter’s conduct, urging the court to consider an upward variance.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sentenced Trotter to 168 months’ imprisonment, the top of the Guidelines range, and five years of supervised release. The court did not reference the prosecutor’s remarks in its sentencing decision. Trotter appealed, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by undermining the agreed-upon Guidelines range and advocating for a sentence above it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court found that the Government breached the plea agreement by advocating for a sentence above the Guidelines range, that this breach affected Trotter’s substantial rights, and that correcting the error was necessary to preserve the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case, allowing Trotter to either seek specific performance of the plea agreement before a new judge or withdraw from the plea agreement. View "United States v. Trotter" on Justia Law

Raymundo Gomez was accused of committing lewd acts against three children at a public swimming pool. The key incidents involved Gomez allegedly bringing a 14-year-old boy’s hand into contact with his genitals and, separately, touching an eight-year-old girl, Katrina, on her buttocks and hip. The prosecution’s case against Gomez relied heavily on Katrina’s prior statements, including her preliminary hearing testimony and a forensic interview, as she did not testify at trial. Katrina’s mother objected to bringing her to court, citing concerns about the emotional impact on her daughter and her reluctance to have Katrina relive the experience in a courtroom setting.The Superior Court of San Diego County found Katrina unavailable to testify after hearing from her mother, who expressed that she did not want Katrina to participate further in the proceedings. The court allowed Katrina’s prior statements to be admitted at trial. The jury convicted Gomez of the offenses against Kane and Katrina but acquitted him of the offense against a third child. Gomez appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding Katrina unavailable and admitting her prior statements, thus violating his constitutional rights.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish Katrina’s unavailability as a witness because the record did not show that her mother’s refusal to bring her to court was unequivocal or that all reasonable efforts to secure her testimony had been exhausted. The court found this error prejudicial and concluded that the admission of Katrina’s prior statements violated Gomez’s confrontation rights. As a result, the court reversed the convictions on all three lewd act counts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "P. v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Eskender Getachew, a medical doctor in Columbus, Ohio, operated a clinic treating patients with opioid addiction. The government alleged that Dr. Getachew unlawfully prescribed controlled substances, particularly Subutex, at rates far exceeding medical norms, often without verifying patients’ claimed allergies to naloxone. Evidence at trial included testimony from an undercover officer, clinic staff, and an expert who identified repeated deviations from accepted medical practice, such as prescribing drugs without documented need and ignoring signs of drug diversion. The jury found Dr. Getachew guilty on eleven counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances and not guilty on four counts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio presided over the trial. After conviction, Dr. Getachew was sentenced to concurrent six-month terms and three years of supervised release. He moved for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and requested an evidentiary hearing, which the district court denied. Dr. Getachew appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the deliberate-ignorance jury instruction, the content of that instruction, his absence at the return of the verdict, and the denial of an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Dr. Getachew knowingly issued unauthorized prescriptions. It found no plain error in the deliberate-ignorance instruction or its content. The court determined that Dr. Getachew’s absence at the verdict’s return did not affect his substantial rights and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the new trial motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Getachew" on Justia Law

In 2010, police responded to an assault in which the victim reported being attacked and threatened due to his cooperation in a homicide investigation. The victim and a witness identified the defendant as one of the assailants. The defendant claimed self-defense, stating he confronted the victim over being called a “rat,” and that the victim emerged with a bat. The victim suffered significant injuries. In 2011, a jury convicted the defendant of multiple offenses, including assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, threatening a witness, and battery with serious bodily injury. The trial court found true several prior convictions, including two strikes, and imposed a sentence of 32 years to life, including enhancements for prior prison terms and great bodily injury.After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, the Superior Court of Humboldt County recalled the sentence in 2022. The court appointed counsel and repeatedly continued the resentencing hearing to allow defense counsel to prepare a sentencing brief. Despite numerous continuances and the court’s admonitions, defense counsel failed to file any written argument or present substantial evidence in mitigation, ultimately making only a brief oral presentation at the hearing. The court struck the four one-year prison prior enhancements but otherwise reimposed the original sentence, and the defendant appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, held that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing. The court found that defense counsel’s failure to file a sentencing brief or adequately present mitigating evidence or argument fell below professional standards and prejudiced the defendant, as there was a reasonable probability the court could have imposed a lesser sentence. The judgment was reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Guevara" on Justia Law

Benjamin Carpenter was accused of providing translation and related services to ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. He founded Ahlud-Tawhid Publications (ATP), which translated and published ISIS propaganda in multiple languages. Carpenter personally translated ISIS materials into English, wrote original content, and managed an ATP group on Telegram, where he coordinated translation projects. An undercover FBI agent, posing as an ISIS affiliate, joined the group and interacted with Carpenter, who recommended and facilitated the translation of ISIS propaganda videos at the agent’s request. Carpenter was arrested before completing a second translation assignment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee charged Carpenter with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. After a five-day trial, a jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison. Carpenter appealed, challenging the statute’s application to his conduct, evidentiary rulings, a protective order allowing an FBI agent to use a pseudonym, jury instructions, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Carpenter’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that translation services constitute “material support” as a “service” under the statute, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admission of evidence related to Carpenter’s involvement with ATP and ISIS, the use of a pseudonym for the FBI agent, and the denial of Carpenter’s proposed jury instructions. The court also upheld the application of the terrorism sentencing enhancement and found the sentence both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law