Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor that occurred in a home on the Choctaw Nation reservation in Oklahoma. The victim was a six-year-old boy, and the defendant, who had recently moved in with his stepdaughter, was alleged to have committed the offense within two days of his arrival. The prosecution charged the defendant under federal law, which required proof that the victim was an Indian and the defendant was a non-Indian.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government presented testimony from the defendant’s stepdaughter and three law enforcement officers, as well as driver’s license records, to establish that the defendant was not an Indian. The stepdaughter testified she did not know of any tribal membership or Indian identity for the defendant. Law enforcement witnesses stated the defendant did not identify as Native American and that inquiries with five major Oklahoma tribes yielded no information about his tribal status. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a non-Indian. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden, finding the evidence presented was too speculative and insufficient to establish the defendant’s non-Indian status. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

Michael Lawrence Rosebar was convicted of multiple counts of bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and first-degree fraud after misrepresenting himself as a licensed home improvement contractor and misappropriating funds from homeowners over a seven-year period. Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Rosebar was found guilty on several counts and sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and thirty-six months of supervised release. His sentence was calculated using a criminal history category of II, which included two status points for committing the offenses while on probation.Rosebar appealed his conviction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. After the Sentencing Commission amended the United States Sentencing Guidelines with Amendment 821, which changed the calculation of status points for defendants with fewer criminal history points, Rosebar filed a motion in the district court seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10. The district court found Rosebar eligible for a reduction but, after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), denied the motion, citing the seriousness of his offenses, their impact on victims, and his lack of remorse.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court properly followed the required two-step inquiry, considered all relevant factors, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Rosebar’s motion for a sentence reduction. View "USA v. Rosebar" on Justia Law

Jody Greathouse was on probation when he was alleged to have violated its terms by leaving an inpatient drug treatment program before completion. He entered into a Consent Order that revoked his probation but suspended the remainder of his sentence on the condition that he successfully complete the program. The Consent Order included a provision in which Greathouse prospectively waived his right to a probation revocation hearing for any future violations related to the treatment program.After Greathouse left the treatment facility, a community supervision officer submitted an affidavit to the trial court, which then issued an arrest order for Greathouse to serve the remainder of his sentence. Greathouse moved to vacate the arrest order and modify the sentence, arguing that he had entered into the Consent Order without counsel and that the waiver of a future hearing was invalid. At a hearing on the motion, the State did not present evidence of the alleged violation, and the trial court denied Greathouse’s motion.The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the trial court’s order, holding that under OCGA § 42-8-34.1(b), a court may not revoke probation unless the defendant admits the violation or a hearing is held at which the violation is established by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court found that the statute does not allow for a prospective waiver of the right to a future revocation hearing.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that OCGA § 42-8-34.1(b) limits a trial court’s authority to revoke probation to two circumstances: the probationer admits the violation, or a hearing is held and the violation is proven. A defendant’s purported waiver of a future hearing does not relieve the court of its statutory obligation to hold such a hearing if there is no admission. View "THE STATE v. GREATHOUSE" on Justia Law

In April 2019, a man and his girlfriend, along with her children, were living in an apartment in DeKalb County, Georgia. After being told to move out by the apartment’s primary resident, the man became angry and assaulted his girlfriend in the presence of her child, inflicting multiple injuries including choking, hitting, and stomping. He later transported her, with the help of his daughter, to another apartment in Fulton County, where further violence occurred. The girlfriend was eventually taken to a hospital and pronounced dead. Medical evidence showed she suffered extensive internal and external injuries, including blunt force trauma and strangulation, which were determined to be the cause of death.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted the man for malice murder and related offenses. At trial in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, the jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for malice murder, with the other counts vacated or merged. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder and to establish venue in DeKalb County, as the fatal injuries were inflicted there. The court also rejected the defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of the venue statute and related jury instruction, finding no conflict with state or federal constitutional requirements. Finally, the court found the defendant’s arguments regarding the proportionality and constitutionality of his sentence to be factually unsupported or abandoned. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "TAYLOR v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, along with his wife, adopted two young girls through the foster care system. Years later, when one of the girls was nearly 17, she disclosed to a friend’s mother that she had been sexually abused by her adoptive father over several years. This disclosure led to a law enforcement investigation, during which the defendant voluntarily went to the sheriff’s department to “turn himself in.” He was subsequently interrogated by two officers in a closed interview room at the station. During the third segment of questioning, after persistent and increasingly accusatory interrogation techniques, the defendant confessed to engaging in sexual acts with one of the victims.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County heard pretrial motions regarding the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement. The prosecution sought to admit the statements, while the defense moved to suppress them, arguing they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court ruled the interrogation was not custodial and admitted the statements. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the victims and law enforcement, while the defense highlighted inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to over 120 years to life in prison.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court held that while the initial questioning was noncustodial, the interrogation became custodial during the third segment, at which point Miranda warnings were required but not given. The court found the admission of the confession was prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. NavaAdame" on Justia Law

Four individuals established two illegal gambling businesses in northern Ohio, operating gaming rooms that paid out winnings in cash. To avoid detection, the true owners concealed their involvement by using nominal owners and destroyed financial records. The businesses operated almost entirely in cash, allowing the owners to hide profits and evade taxes. One of the defendants, an accountant, played a central role in managing finances and preparing false tax returns for the group. The scheme also involved efforts to launder money and shield assets from IRS collection, including the use of shell companies and deceptive real estate transactions.After law enforcement executed multiple search warrants in 2018, a grand jury indicted several participants on conspiracy, illegal gambling, tax evasion, and related charges. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied motions to dismiss and to sever the trials. At trial, a jury convicted two defendants on nearly all counts. At sentencing, the court calculated tax losses exceeding $3.5 million for each defendant, resulting in lengthy prison terms and substantial restitution orders. Both defendants challenged the loss calculations, the denial of severance, jury instructions, and other procedural aspects.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, as no compelling prejudice was shown. The court found no error in the denial of the motion to dismiss the tax evasion count, concluding that affirmative acts of evasion within the limitations period were sufficiently alleged. The appellate court also upheld the district court’s tax loss calculations, the application of the sophisticated means enhancement, and the handling of jury instructions. The sentences were affirmed, but the case was remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment regarding restitution interest. View "United States v. DiPietro" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted in Wisconsin state court for first-degree reckless homicide after selling heroin that resulted in a fatal overdose. The defendant, along with another individual, sold heroin to the victim, who was then injected with the drug and became unconscious. Instead of seeking immediate medical help, the two men drove around with the unconscious victim, later returned to the defendant’s house, and only after several hours did the other individual take the victim to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. The defendant was arrested about a month later and charged with multiple offenses, but only the homicide conviction is relevant here.After his conviction and sentencing, the defendant sought post-conviction relief in the Wisconsin trial court and then appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. His appellate counsel filed a “no-merit” report, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no deficiency in trial counsel’s performance. The defendant then attempted to petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review, but his petition was filed after the deadline. The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the petition as untimely and denied reconsideration.Subsequently, the defendant filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, again raising ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the defendant had procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to timely exhaust state remedies and had not shown cause to excuse the default. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the defendant’s reliance on a prison law librarian’s miscalculation of the filing deadline did not constitute cause to excuse procedural default, and that the defendant had not preserved any alternative argument regarding lack of law library access. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jannke v Gierach" on Justia Law

Law enforcement stopped a vehicle in which Michael Henderson was a passenger. During a search, a K-9 alerted to drugs in Henderson’s bag, which contained approximately 1,921.2 grams of pure methamphetamine. Henderson was arrested, and while in jail, he made phone calls instructing associates on drug distribution using coded language. One associate, Bonnie Cagle, revealed to police that Henderson’s references to “puppies” were code for firearms, and “sockets” and “tools” referred to drugs. Police recovered two firearms linked to Henderson from Cagle and her mother’s home.Henderson pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to possessing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The presentence investigation report initially recommended a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm, but after Henderson’s timely objection and the government’s lack of response, the probation officer removed the enhancement. The revised report also recommended a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court later requested supplemental briefing on Henderson’s eligibility for “safety valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The government then argued for sentencing enhancements and against the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which Henderson claimed were untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in considering the government’s late arguments for sentencing enhancements, finding that the request for supplemental briefing constituted good cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the firearm enhancement, concluding that Henderson constructively possessed firearms in connection with drug trafficking. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Henderson’s sentence. View "US v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Robert Hutton secretly installed a hidden camera in the bathroom of his home and, over the course of about a year, recorded several nude videos and images of his 14-year-old stepdaughter without her knowledge. He edited some of the footage to focus on moments when the victim was visibly nude. The victim discovered the existence of these files after seeing a suspicious file name on Hutton’s phone and subsequently reported the matter to the police. A search of Hutton’s residence uncovered additional child pornography, including images of other minors.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington presided over a bench trial based on stipulated facts. Hutton was charged with sexually exploiting a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). He moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the images were not “lascivious,” that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied, and that he did not “use” the victim within the meaning of the statute. The district court denied these motions, found Hutton guilty, and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Hutton’s arguments de novo where appropriate and for clear error regarding factual findings. The court held that existing Ninth Circuit precedent foreclosed Hutton’s arguments on all grounds. Specifically, the court found that the district court did not clearly err in determining the images were “lascivious” under the Dost factors, that § 2251(a) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied, and that Hutton’s conduct constituted “use” of a minor under the statute. The court also held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dubin v. United States, which interpreted the term “use” in a different statutory context, did not undermine the Ninth Circuit’s precedent regarding § 2251(a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction. View "USA V. HUTTON" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement agents began investigating drug and firearm distribution activities in Spokane, Washington, in 2022. Their investigation led to Johnathan Allen, who had a significant criminal history and was known to distribute methamphetamine and possess firearms. Allen and three codefendants were indicted by a federal grand jury in January 2023 for distribution of methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. After his arrest, several pretrial motions and continuances delayed the trial. A superseding indictment was returned in May 2023, and Allen continued to file additional pretrial motions. Although Allen initially insisted on a speedy trial, the court, with agreement from the parties, set a new trial date for October 2023.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington later determined that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA) had occurred because it had not sufficiently documented the reasons for the trial continuance as required by statute, nor had it obtained a waiver from Allen. The court dismissed both the original and superseding indictments without prejudice, after weighing the seriousness of the offense, the technical nature of the violation, and the lack of prejudice to Allen. The government promptly re-indicted Allen on the same charges, and the case proceeded to trial. During trial, the court admitted Facebook records linking Allen to the crimes, over his objection that they were not properly authenticated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Allen’s convictions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictments without prejudice, as it properly considered the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). The appellate court also found no error in the admission of the Facebook records, concluding they were self-authenticating business records under Federal Rules of Evidence 902(11) and 803(6), and that their substantive content was properly authenticated under Rule 901(a). The court further held that the records were admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403. View "USA V. ALLEN" on Justia Law