Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Jordan Cole consented to a one-year protective order in a domestic abuse case, which prohibited him from possessing firearms under Iowa Code section 724.26(2)(a). Despite this, Cole pawned stolen firearms while the order was in effect. He was charged with theft and violations of section 724.26(2)(a). The theft charge was dropped, and Cole was convicted of two violations of section 724.26(2)(a). He was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences, which were suspended with probation.Cole appealed his convictions, arguing that section 724.26(2)(a) violated the Second Amendment and article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution. He also claimed an error in his sentencing order. The Iowa District Court for Story County had denied his motion to dismiss the charges based on these constitutional claims. Cole and the State agreed to dismiss two charges, and Cole waived his jury rights, leading to a trial on the minutes of testimony. The district court found Cole guilty and sentenced him to concurrent terms, suspended with probation, but stated that if probation was revoked, the sentences could be served consecutively.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Cole waived his Second Amendment and article I, section 1A rights by consenting to the protective order, which explicitly prohibited firearm possession. The court affirmed his convictions but agreed with Cole that the sentencing order's provision for consecutive sentences upon probation revocation was unlawful. The court remanded the case for entry of a corrected sentencing order, ensuring that any revocation of probation would not result in consecutive sentences. View "State of Iowa v. Cole" on Justia Law

Rodney Higgins pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. He appealed, challenging the search that led to his arrest, arguing that the search warrant lacked probable cause. From June to August 2021, Higgins was involved in a drug distribution ring. Officers used a confidential source to conduct two controlled buys from Higgins. A Drug Enforcement Administration task force officer prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Higgins’s apartment, detailing the officer’s training, the confidential source’s knowledge of Higgins’s drug activities, Higgins’s criminal history, and the controlled buys. The affidavit also included a text exchange where Higgins used coded language to indicate he had more drugs.The magistrate judge found probable cause and issued a search warrant. The search of Higgins’s apartment yielded 370 grams of methamphetamine and over 200 grams of fentanyl. Higgins was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. He moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court denied the motion. Higgins pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, raising three issues: the nexus between his drug trafficking and residence, entitlement to a hearing based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit, and the applicability of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause, establishing a fair probability that contraband would be found in Higgins’s apartment. The court also found that Higgins was not entitled to a Franks hearing, as he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of a knowing, intentional, or reckless falsehood in the affidavit. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Higgins’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Higgins" on Justia Law

Luis A. Ramirez, an inmate serving a lengthy sentence for felony convictions, attacked a corrections officer with a sharpened pencil. He was charged with battery by a prisoner and disorderly conduct. Due to multiple continuances and rescheduled trial dates, Ramirez was tried and convicted by a jury 46 months after the charges were filed.Ramirez moved for postconviction relief, claiming the delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The postconviction court denied his motion, and Ramirez appealed. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding that Ramirez's right to a speedy trial was violated and ordered the charges dismissed. The State sought review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court found that while the 46-month delay was presumptively prejudicial, it was not long enough to declare prejudice as a matter of law. The reasons for the delay were attributed to neutral factors, such as the orderly administration of justice and the State's negligence, but not deliberate or bad-faith conduct. Ramirez's significant delay in asserting his right to a speedy trial and his failure to demonstrate particularized prejudice weighed against him.The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Ramirez's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

William C. Dugan sought a harassment protection order against Steve Sorensen, alleging that Sorensen attacked him in the driveway of Sorensen's home while Dugan was picking up his children. Dugan claimed Sorensen knocked him down, banged his head into the pavement, and later threatened him while he was in his car waiting for the police. Sorensen argued that he intervened to protect his wife, Natalie Sorensen, who he believed was being assaulted by Dugan. The incident was partially captured on a neighbor's security camera.The district court for Douglas County issued an ex parte harassment protection order in favor of Dugan. At a subsequent show cause hearing, the court reviewed the evidence, including the security footage and testimonies from Dugan, Sorensen, Natalie, and the older child of Dugan and Natalie. The court found Dugan's testimony more credible and determined that Sorensen's actions constituted harassment. The court affirmed the protection order, finding that Sorensen's conduct involved multiple acts of harassment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that a course of conduct for harassment protection orders requires at least two separate acts of harassment. The court found that Sorensen's physical assault on Dugan in the driveway and the subsequent verbal threats while Dugan was in his car constituted two separate acts of harassment. The court also addressed Sorensen's justification defense, noting that justification is an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions and certain civil actions but not explicitly in civil protection order proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue the harassment protection order, concluding that Sorensen's actions met the statutory definition of harassment and that his justification defense was not applicable. View "Dugan v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

A man was accused of attempting to commit statutory rape against his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter. The incident occurred in the early morning hours when the child’s mother discovered the man in bed with her daughter, who was nude except for a bra. The mother called 911, and the child was taken to the hospital and later interviewed at a Children’s Advocacy Center. The man was initially indicted on seven counts related to various alleged acts against the child, but all but one count—attempted statutory rape—were dropped or not presented to the jury at trial.The case was tried in the Warren County Circuit Court. Before trial, the court held a hearing to determine whether the child’s recorded interview at the advocacy center could be admitted under the tender years hearsay exception. The court allowed the recording, finding the exception satisfied. During trial, the court also admitted a 911 dispatch report over defense objections regarding hearsay and reliability. The jury heard testimony from the child, her mother, law enforcement, a forensic interviewer, and a nurse examiner. The defense challenged the credibility of the evidence and witnesses, but the jury found the defendant guilty of attempted statutory rape. The trial court sentenced him to fifty years in prison, with thirty years to serve.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed claims that the admission of the child’s interview and the 911 report were erroneous, that expert and prosecutorial comments improperly vouched for the child’s credibility, and that cumulative error deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The court held that no reversible error occurred, finding that the defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated, the evidentiary rulings were not plain error, and there was no improper vouching or cumulative error. The conviction was affirmed. View "Cole v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The People initiated a criminal prosecution against Diana Maria Teran, alleging she misused information obtained during her employment with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) while working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Teran was charged with violations of Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c)(2), which criminalizes unauthorized access and use of data from a computer system. The charges were based on Teran’s alleged use of data related to disciplinary proceedings of sheriff’s deputies, which she accessed during her tenure at LASD and later shared with a colleague at the District Attorney’s Office.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held Teran to answer on six counts after a preliminary hearing, finding sufficient evidence that she accessed the deputies' personnel records through LASD’s Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS) and used this data without permission. The court rejected Teran’s argument that she was exempt from prosecution under the statute for acting within the scope of lawful employment and denied her motion to dismiss the charges under section 995. Teran then filed a petition for writ of prohibition.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and granted Teran’s petition. The court held that section 502(c)(2) does not apply to the use of purely public court records, even if those records were accessed from a computer system without permission. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the statute was to prevent hacking and tampering with computer systems, not to criminalize the sharing of public information. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the charges against Teran and unsealed certain exhibits related to the case. View "Teran v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a drug trafficking conspiracy in Fort Wayne, Indiana, using a confidential source to conduct controlled buys from Zachary Barnes. Barnes coordinated the sales, supplied methamphetamine, and directed his co-conspirator, Marquese Neal, to make deliveries. Neal testified that Barnes paid him in marijuana for his services. Barnes was arrested, and law enforcement found drugs and ammunition in his home.Barnes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess it with intent to distribute. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana applied a two-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for Barnes' role as a manager or supervisor. This enhancement made Barnes ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Barnes objected to the role enhancement and the denial of safety-valve relief, but the district court overruled his objections, finding Neal's testimony credible and supported by other evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's application of the role enhancement, agreeing that Barnes' actions—recruiting Neal, coordinating logistics, supplying drugs, and directing deliveries—fit the criteria for a manager or supervisor under section 3B1.1(c). The court also upheld the denial of safety-valve relief, as Barnes' supervisory role made him ineligible. The Seventh Circuit found no clear error in the district court's credibility determinations or factual findings and affirmed Barnes' ten-year sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Aaron Lewis was indicted in Gwinnett County in 2021 for the felony murders of Dieterick Stephen Duncker and Alexandria Thompson, along with other related crimes. The indictment alleged that Lewis sold and distributed fentanyl-laced heroin to Duncker and Thompson, causing their deaths in Gwinnett County. Lewis filed a motion to dismiss the felony-murder counts, arguing that venue was improper in Gwinnett County since the sales occurred in DeKalb County.The trial court denied Lewis's amended motion to dismiss, reasoning that the ingestion of the narcotics and the resulting deaths in Gwinnett County made venue proper there. The court granted a certificate of immediate review, and Lewis's interlocutory application to review the trial court's ruling on venue was accepted.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and vacated the trial court's order denying Lewis's amended motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had improperly relied on the case Eubanks v. State, which dealt with the sufficiency of evidence for a felony murder conviction, not venue. The Supreme Court clarified that the relevant question for venue is where the cause of death was inflicted, as per OCGA § 17-2-2 (c). The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Lewis v. State" on Justia Law

The defendants, Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes, and Faraday Hosseinipour, were involved in a company called Infinity 2 Global (I2G), which the FBI determined to be a pyramid scheme. The company collected approximately $34 million from investors, most of whom lost money. After a 25-day trial, a jury convicted the defendants of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The defendants appealed their convictions, presenting numerous arguments for reversal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky initially handled the case, where the jury found the defendants guilty on both counts. The defendants were sentenced to varying prison terms: Maike received 120 months, Barnes 48 months, and Hosseinipour 30 months. The defendants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, among other issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and rejected all the defendants' arguments. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts on both counts. The court also determined that the jury instructions were appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The court affirmed the criminal judgments of Maike and Barnes. For Hosseinipour, the court affirmed her criminal judgment but vacated the district court's denial of her Rule 33 motion for a new trial, remanding her case for reconsideration of that motion. View "United States v. Maike" on Justia Law

Victor Manuel Castro-Aleman, originally from El Salvador, was brought to the United States illegally in 1973 as a child. Over the years, he had multiple encounters with law enforcement, including four DUI convictions in Virginia between 2009 and 2014. In 2016, while serving a sentence for his fourth DUI, he was visited by ICE agents and subsequently issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings. He was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) after failing to submit an asylum application and not appealing the removal order. Castro-Aleman reentered the United States illegally and was discovered in Virginia in 2023, leading to his indictment for illegal reentry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Castro-Aleman's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that his 2016 removal order was invalid due to due process violations. The district court found that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Castro-Aleman failed to demonstrate that his removal order was "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The court found that even if there were due process violations, such as the IJ's failure to inform him adequately of his right to appeal, Castro-Aleman could not show actual prejudice. His extensive criminal history and admissions during the removal hearing established multiple independent grounds for his removability, making any appeal futile. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss and upheld his conviction for illegal reentry. View "United States v. Castro-Aleman" on Justia Law