Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Denis Lemieux pleaded guilty to domestic violence terrorizing and received a partially suspended sentence with probation. The probation terms required that he not contact certain family members, refrain from criminal conduct, seek evaluations and counseling, and notify probation before moving. Several months later, the State alleged that Lemieux violated his probation by making threatening social media statements about two family members he was barred from contacting, failing to comply with required evaluations and counseling, and not notifying probation of a move.The Kennebec County Unified Criminal Docket held a hearing, found by a preponderance of the evidence that Lemieux violated multiple probation conditions, and partially revoked his probation, imposing a custodial sanction. Lemieux argued at the sanction hearing that the court should consider the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted, asserting that if the statute was unconstitutional, his conviction and sentence were void. The court rejected this collateral attack, concluding that only a post-conviction review proceeding—not a probation revocation hearing—was the proper procedure for challenging the validity of the underlying conviction. Lemieux’s post-conviction review petition raising the constitutional issue had been stayed pending appeal.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that a defendant may not use a probation revocation proceeding to collaterally attack the constitutionality of the statute underlying the conviction. The court reaffirmed that post-conviction review is the exclusive method for challenging the validity of a conviction, except for direct appeal. The decision to affirm the trial court’s revocation of Lemieux’s probation was based on the proper use of procedural avenues for contesting convictions. The judgment of probation revocation was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Lemieux" on Justia Law

A man was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse arising from the abuse of his seven-year-old granddaughter. The alleged abuse occurred when the child and her brother visited their grandparents’ home. The granddaughter testified that the defendant touched her genitals after she asked for a belly rub, and that he told her not to reveal what had happened. Later that day, she disclosed the abuse to her family, and her father, a police officer, confronted the defendant. The defendant made statements about “helping [her] explore her sexuality” to both his son-in-law and his wife. The next day, police arrested the defendant, who was questioned after being transported to the station.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, the defendant moved to suppress his confession, arguing his statutory and constitutional rights were violated. The district court found a violation of his statutory right under Iowa Code section 804.20 to make a phone call, and suppressed his confession, but rejected his constitutional right-to-counsel claim. The jury, without hearing the confession, convicted the defendant. The court also permitted the child to testify via one-way closed-circuit television, over defense objection, and allowed the defendant’s then-wife to testify about his statements to her.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the child’s testimony. However, the court held that allowing the complaining witness to testify via one-way closed-circuit television violated the defendant’s state constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation under article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution, as interpreted in State v. White. The court concluded this error was not harmless, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The court affirmed the admissibility of the wife’s testimony, reversed the suppression of the confession, and rejected the constitutional right-to-counsel claim. View "State of Iowa v. Lindaman" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Aleah Michelle Camp and Danielle Ashley Simons, were each charged by home-rule municipalities in Colorado (Westminster and Aurora, respectively) with non-felony offenses—low-level theft and trespass—under municipal ordinances that prohibited the same conduct as relevant state statutes. Following the enactment of Colorado’s Misdemeanor Reform Act, which lowered sentencing caps for these state offenses, the municipal codes continued to authorize penalties for identical conduct that were significantly harsher than those allowed under state law.In the Westminster Municipal Court and Aurora Municipal Court, both defendants moved to dismiss their charges, arguing that the municipal sentencing provisions were preempted by state law because the penalties exceeded those permitted under the revised state statutes. Both municipal courts denied the motions, relying on precedent that recognized the authority of home-rule municipalities to regulate low-level offenses and to set their own penalties, and found no preemption or conflict with state law.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed these cases under its original jurisdiction. The Court held that when a municipal ordinance and a state statute prohibit identical conduct, municipalities may not authorize penalties that exceed the maximum sentencing caps established by state law for the corresponding offense. The Court found that the establishment of penalties for low-level criminal conduct is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern, but that municipal sentencing provisions which allow harsher penalties than state law create an operational conflict and are thus preempted to the extent of that conflict. The Court made the orders to show cause absolute and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with this holding. Camp and Simons may be prosecuted for their ordinance violations, but cannot be subjected to penalties greater than those permitted by state law for the same conduct. View "People v. Michelle" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers arrested the defendant after receiving a tip that a fugitive was staying at a local RV park. Upon stopping the defendant’s car for a traffic violation, deputies observed crystal methamphetamine in the front seat and, during a search, found that the defendant was carrying a handgun. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts: possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, which carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and use of a firearm in relation to a drug crime, which also carries a consecutive five-year mandatory minimum sentence.The defendant entered a plea agreement, wherein the government promised to move for a downward departure from the statutory minimum sentence if the defendant provided substantial assistance, reserving discretion over whether and to what extent to make such a motion. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accepted the plea. The government eventually moved for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but only with respect to the drug possession count. At sentencing, the district court granted the motion and sentenced the defendant below the statutory minimum for both counts, issuing a time-served sentence on the first count and one day on the second count, served consecutively. The government objected, arguing that its motion pertained only to the first count.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) authorizes a departure below a statutory minimum sentence only when the government specifically moves for such a departure as to that particular count. Because the government did not move for a departure on the firearm count, the district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum for that count. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the sentence as to the firearm count and remanded for resentencing in accordance with its opinion. View "USA v. Day" on Justia Law

Canon City Police Department officers stopped Thomas James Havens in a Motel 6 parking lot for a traffic infraction. During the stop, officers arrested Havens on outstanding warrants and observed drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. Following a K-9 alert, a search of the vehicle uncovered illegal narcotics, a firearm, bullets, and a ledger. Havens stated he was staying in room 220 of the motel. Officer Modlin, having muted his body-worn camera (BWC) audio during unrelated conversations, entered the motel and spoke with a clerk, who indicated that Havens was actually staying in room 223. Officer Modlin failed to reactivate his BWC audio during this conversation. The clerk’s statement was the sole basis in the affidavit for a warrant to search room 223, where officers subsequently found additional narcotics and paraphernalia, leading to further charges against Havens.Havens moved to suppress the evidence found in room 223, arguing that the prosecution violated its discovery obligations under Colorado Criminal Procedure Rule 16 by failing to provide a report explaining why Officer Modlin muted his BWC audio. He also argued that the clerk’s statement was inadmissible under Colorado’s BWC statute, which creates a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility for unrecorded statements. The Fremont County District Court agreed, barring Officer Modlin’s testimony about the BWC issue and the clerk’s statements as a discovery sanction. The district court found that, without this testimony, the permissive inference of officer misconduct was unrebutted and the search warrant lacked probable cause, leading to suppression of the room 223 evidence.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the district court misinterpreted both the BWC statute and Rule 16. The Court ruled that the prosecution was not required to provide a report explaining the muted BWC audio and should have been permitted to rebut the presumption of inadmissibility regarding the clerk’s statement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the suppression order and remanded the case for a hearing as required by the BWC statute. View "People v. Havens" on Justia Law

Kelsey Fitzsimmons, a North Andover police officer, was indicted in Essex County on one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The Commonwealth alleged that during the service of an abuse prevention order, Fitzsimmons deceived officers regarding firearms in her home, drew a firearm, pointed it at an officer, and pulled the trigger, though the gun did not discharge. She then allegedly attempted to chamber a round before being shot by an officer. The Commonwealth presented further evidence of Fitzsimmons’s prior alcohol-related violence, mental health struggles, and a 2019 misdemeanor conviction for intoxicated and disruptive behavior. Fitzsimmons relied on medical and psychological evidence suggesting she was suitable for outpatient care and posed no credible risk of harm.Initially, the District Court ordered Fitzsimmons held on dangerousness grounds. A Superior Court judge subsequently found her dangerous but released her subject to strict conditions, including house arrest, GPS monitoring, and alcohol abstinence monitored by SCRAM testing. When Fitzsimmons claimed she could not physically comply with SCRAM testing due to injuries, the judge vacated the release order and detained her pretrial. Fitzsimmons moved for reconsideration, proposing urine testing as an alternative, but the judge denied the motion, finding that urine testing would interfere with house arrest requirements.Fitzsimmons then petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, arguing the judge erred in refusing less restrictive alternatives and in her conduct. The single justice denied the petition, concluding there was no error or abuse of discretion. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that neither the hearing judge nor the single justice abused their discretion in ordering detention when Fitzsimmons could not comply with the least restrictive conditions necessary for community safety. The Court also found no requirement for de novo review and rejected Fitzsimmons’s arguments under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other statutes. Judgment was affirmed. View "Fitzsimmons v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Julius Robinson was convicted of murders committed during drug offenses and sentenced to death in the Northern District of Texas. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Robinson then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255, which was denied by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit denied him a certificate of appealability. Subsequent efforts to reopen his case were treated as requests to file second or successive §2255 petitions, which were also denied.After these unsuccessful attempts, Robinson sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where he was incarcerated. He raised five issues, including claims about the jurisdiction of the trial court, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and violations of his rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. The district court dismissed Robinson’s §2241 petition, holding that §2255(e) barred review because Robinson had not shown that the remedy under §2255 was inadequate or ineffective, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under Jones and its own recent decision in Agofsky v. Baysore, §2255(e) does not permit a federal prisoner to seek relief under §2241 merely because he cannot satisfy the requirements for filing a second or successive §2255 motion, unless the sentencing court is unavailable. The Seventh Circuit further clarified that prior circuit decisions allowing such claims under §2241 are no longer authoritative. The court also rejected Robinson’s Suspension Clause argument and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the petition. View "Robinson v. Lammer" on Justia Law

A political news producer in Puerto Rico contacted a senior government official, warning that the son of the Treasury Secretary possessed damaging chat messages about the administration and might release them unless political attacks on his father ceased. The producer and the official met twice; the producer described a binder of messages and relayed demands for $300,000, renewal of two government contracts, and payments to media personalities in exchange for withholding the chats and favorable coverage. After the chats were leaked, resulting in political turmoil and resignations, the official became a confidential FBI source, recorded a second meeting, and collaborated with agents. The producer later deleted relevant messaging records from the official's phone during an FBI interview.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held a jury trial. The jury convicted the producer on three counts: attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), transmitting a threatening communication with intent to extort (18 U.S.C. § 875(d)), and destruction of records in a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519). The defendant moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors in jury instructions. The district court denied these motions and sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged procedural errors. It held that the evidence was sufficient for all counts, including proof of wrongful threats and intent to extort, and that the government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations. The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions or limitations on cross-examination and affirmed the convictions in full. View "United States v. Diaz-Colon" on Justia Law

In this case, Ricco Saine was approached by police in a motel parking lot after a BOLO alert indicated he was suspected of narcotics trafficking. Officers, believing the motel was a known drug location, called in a K9 unit, which alerted on Saine’s truck. A subsequent search uncovered a firearm and a small amount of a substance believed to be marijuana, though its identity was not confirmed. Weeks later, officers investigating at Saine’s home discovered additional firearms, some of which had been purchased by Saine’s wife, Tonya, with Saine present. Police later obtained a text exchange between Saine and Tonya, indicating she had his gun in their house.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Saine’s motion to suppress the firearm found in his truck, rejecting his argument that the K9’s inability to distinguish between legal hemp and illegal marijuana invalidated probable cause for the search. At trial, the court also admitted the text exchange between Saine and Tonya, overruling Saine’s objections that it constituted inadmissible hearsay and impermissible propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a K9 alert supplies probable cause for a vehicle search, even when the dog cannot distinguish between legal and illegal cannabis, as probable cause depends on probabilities, not certainties. The court also found that the admission of the text exchange was proper, as it was used to show Saine’s knowledge rather than propensity, and any prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court affirmed Saine’s conviction. View "United States v. Saine" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani founded Theranos, a company that claimed its technology could run fast, accurate, and affordable blood tests using just a drop of blood. Holmes served as CEO, and Balwani as President and COO. They raised significant investments by making representations about the capabilities of Theranos’s proprietary devices, financial health, and business relationships. However, investigations revealed that the technology was unreliable, Theranos often relied on third-party devices, and its partnerships and finances were misrepresented to investors. Both Holmes and Balwani were indicted for conspiracy and wire fraud relating to investors and patients; they were tried separately, and each was convicted of multiple counts of fraud.Proceedings were held before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Holmes was convicted on four investor-related counts, while Balwani was convicted on all counts, including those related to patients and investors. At sentencing, both were found responsible for losses to multiple victims and given lengthy prison terms. The district court also ordered them to pay $452 million in restitution to fourteen victims, finding that the money invested constituted the lost property.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the convictions, sentences, and restitution order. The panel held that while some testimony by former Theranos employees should have been treated as expert opinion under Rule 702, any error was harmless. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting a regulatory report, limiting cross-examination, or excluding certain hearsay statements. It rejected arguments of constructive amendment and Napue violations. The panel clarified restitution calculations under the MVRA, holding that the victims’ actual losses equaled their total investments, affirming the district court’s order. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law