Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Koby Don Williams, a supervisor with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was charged with attempted online enticement of a minor after engaging in an undercover operation where he believed he was communicating with a thirteen-year-old girl named “Rebecca.” In reality, “Rebecca” was a persona created by law enforcement. Williams exchanged nearly 100 texts and several phone calls, during which “Rebecca” repeatedly stated her age. Williams negotiated sexual acts and payment, offered to travel with “Rebecca,” and ultimately arranged a meeting, bringing cash, alcohol, and generic Viagra. When arrested, Williams claimed he was conducting a human trafficking investigation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington presided over Williams’s trial. Williams’s primary defense was that he never believed “Rebecca” was a minor, asserting that he thought he was communicating with an adult. He filed pretrial motions to suppress or authenticate the decoy advertisement and, after conviction, moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and statutory misinterpretation. The district court denied these motions. At sentencing, the court imposed a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, based on Williams’s alleged perjury, without making specific factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for attempted enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), rejecting Williams’s argument that the statute required proof he attempted to “transform or overcome the will” of a minor. The Ninth Circuit also found no plain error in the government’s failure to produce the original decoy advertisement. However, the court vacated Williams’s sentence, concluding the district court erred by not making explicit findings required to support the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, and remanded for resentencing. The conviction was affirmed. View "USA V. WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was indicted for sex trafficking minors and faced serious federal charges. Over the course of three years between his indictment and trial, the defendant was represented by five different court-appointed attorneys. He repeatedly refused to cooperate with his lawyers, frequently submitted pro se motions, and violated court orders prohibiting him from contacting victims and witnesses. Twice, after comprehensive hearings in line with Faretta v. California, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and elected to represent himself, despite being warned by the judge that no further attorneys would be appointed if he changed his mind again.Throughout the pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois patiently allowed several changes in representation, including the appointment of standby counsel. However, when the defendant again requested an attorney during trial, after previously waiving counsel and being warned that further appointments would not be made, the district judge denied the request. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty on all counts, and his posttrial motions—including a challenge to the denial of his midtrial request for counsel—were denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the district judge abused his discretion in denying the midtrial request for a sixth appointed lawyer. The Seventh Circuit held that, after a valid Faretta waiver, district judges may require a defendant to abide by his choice to proceed pro se, especially if the request for counsel is made after trial has begun. The court further held that there is no constitutional requirement to reassess the defendant’s motives or the likely delay caused by such a request under these circumstances. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v Perry" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault against his niece, N.H., based on events that occurred between 2005 and 2011, when N.H. was a child. The charges alleged both oral and penetrative sexual contact. The main evidence at trial included N.H.’s testimony describing multiple assaults, with a focus on specific incidents that occurred in the defendant’s barn, particularly an incident when N.H. was in the sixth grade. N.H. also testified that the assaults stopped when she was around eleven or twelve years old.After the jury convicted the defendant on both counts in the Superior Court, Addison Unit, Criminal Division, the defendant appealed. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that N.H. was under thirteen at the time of the barn assault (Count Two), that the trial court’s jury instruction on reasonable doubt violated his constitutional rights, and that the admission of prior-bad-act evidence was an abuse of discretion. The trial court had previously denied his motion for acquittal on Count Two, finding there was enough evidence for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that N.H. was under thirteen at the relevant time, affirming the denial of acquittal. However, the Court determined that the trial court’s instruction defining “beyond a reasonable doubt” as “great certainty” impermissibly lowered the government’s burden of proof, violating the defendant’s federal due process rights. This was deemed plain error, requiring reversal of the convictions and a remand for a new trial. The Court did not address the evidentiary issue regarding prior bad acts. The main holding is that defining “beyond a reasonable doubt” as “great certainty” constitutes plain error warranting reversal and a new trial. View "State v. Kolts" on Justia Law

Jessie Farmer pleaded guilty in 2016 to two counts of using a communication facility to distribute methamphetamine, for which he received the statutory maximum sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. After completing his prison term, Farmer began supervised release in 2024. The probation office later alleged that Farmer committed multiple violations of his release conditions, including missing drug tests and testing positive for drugs. The government petitioned to revoke his supervised release based on these violations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas reviewed the petition. Farmer argued that because he had already served the statutory maximum prison term for his offense, any additional imprisonment after revocation would violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights unless a jury found the violations beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court denied Farmer’s motion to dismiss, found by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed ten violations, revoked his supervised release, and imposed a new prison sentence of twelve months, the statutory maximum for his supervised release violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether Farmer’s revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3583(g) violated his constitutional rights to due process and trial by jury. The court concluded that the relevant Supreme Court guidance, particularly the controlling concurrence in United States v. Haymond, does not require application of the Apprendi line of cases to supervised release revocations under these sections. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court’s revocation and sentence did not violate Farmer’s constitutional rights, because the statutes did not require punishment for a new offense, preserved judicial discretion, and limited the sentence to the original statutory maximum. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Farmer" on Justia Law

Christopher Pence was investigated after arranging, through the dark web, for the murder of Francesco and Christina Cordero, with whom he and his wife had a contentious relationship following the adoption of the Corderos' children. Pence provided the purported hitman with the Corderos' personal information and paid over $16,000 in Bitcoin. The FBI traced the online activity and cryptocurrency transaction to Pence’s Utah residence, but acknowledged that others in the household could have accessed the devices involved. After obtaining a search warrant, law enforcement executed an early morning raid on Pence’s home, subsequently separating him from his family and inviting him to speak voluntarily in an FBI vehicle parked outside.Following these events, Pence was questioned by agents in the vehicle without being handcuffed or physically restrained and was told he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions. After a period of rapport-building, agents confronted him with evidence of his involvement in the murder-for-hire scheme, prompting Pence to confess before receiving Miranda warnings. Over two hours into the encounter, agents read Pence his rights, after which he continued to speak. Pence moved to suppress his pre-Miranda statements in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, arguing he was in custody during the interrogation. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding Pence was not in custody and thus Miranda warnings were not required at the time of his confession. Pence subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Pence’s position would not have believed he was in custody. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Pence" on Justia Law

An elderly man named Cornelius Hoffmans, suffering from memory problems, developed a close relationship with the appellant after meeting her at a charity event. Over several years, Hoffmans gave her significant sums of money, purchased a house naming both as joint tenants, and later transferred his interest in the property to her without compensation. The two entered into a domestic partnership, which Hoffmans believed was a step toward marriage, although he was unaware of her sexual orientation and other relationships. Hoffmans’ sons discovered these transactions and, concerned about his wellbeing, initiated a civil action that resulted in the annulment of the partnership, revocation of her power of attorney, and the transfer of contested property to Hoffmans’ sons.Following an investigation, the State charged the appellant with multiple counts of exploitation of an older or vulnerable person, theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, presided over a jury trial, which resulted in convictions on five counts of exploitation, three counts of theft, and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card, with acquittals on other counts. The appellant raised several issues on appeal, including improper jury instructions, evidentiary errors, statute of limitations challenges, and the appropriate unit of prosecution under the elder exploitation statute.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the statutory definition of exploitation was ambiguous, and, applying the rule of lenity, determined that the unit of prosecution is one count per victim, not per act. Although the court found error in charging multiple counts of exploitation, it concluded the error was not plain under existing law and did not independently warrant reversal. However, the court found reversible error in the admission of evidence about the appellant’s misuse of charitable funds and the issuance of an erroneous jury instruction regarding undue influence. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the judgment of conviction on all counts and remanded for a new trial. View "SMITH VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, domestic battery with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, and battery with use of a deadly weapon. These charges stemmed from an incident in which the appellant shot his ex-fiancée and struck his landlord with a gun following an altercation in his landlord’s trailer. The appellant did not testify at trial, but his theory of defense was that he acted in self-defense, relying on evidence of his own injuries and the circumstances surrounding the confrontation. He sought to introduce evidence of two prior occasions when the victim had allegedly stabbed him, arguing that this was relevant to his state of mind and the reasonableness of his belief that he needed to defend himself.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, denied the appellant’s efforts to admit evidence about the prior stabbings and related text messages, ruling that such evidence was inadmissible to show the appellant’s state of mind. The trial court, however, did instruct the jury on self-defense. The jury convicted the appellant on all counts.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that the district court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s prior specific violent acts known to the appellant, as such evidence was admissible to show the appellant’s state of mind regarding self-defense, even if the appellant did not testify. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion by preventing cross-examination and authentication of text messages about the prior stabbing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that these errors were harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and it found the appellant’s other arguments unpersuasive. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "CHABOT VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in two separate criminal complaints, filed by different prosecutors, for conduct arising out of the same incident. The first complaint, brought by a city prosecutor in county court, alleged violations of municipal ordinances—specifically assault and battery, and disorderly conduct. The defendant entered a no contest plea to disorderly conduct as part of a plea agreement, and the assault and battery charge was dismissed with prejudice. Shortly before this plea, the county attorney’s office had filed a separate complaint charging the defendant with felony assault based on the same incident. After the case was later amended to charge first degree felony assault, the defendant argued that prosecuting the felony charge would violate double jeopardy protections.In the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant filed a plea in bar, contending that double jeopardy attached to the dismissed municipal assault and battery charge, thus barring the subsequent felony prosecution. The district court denied the plea, finding that jeopardy never attached to the dismissed charge because the defendant did not plead guilty or face trial on that offense, and the dismissal did not entail a determination of the merits.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the plea in bar de novo. The court held that jeopardy did not attach to the municipal assault and battery charge because the defendant did not enter a plea to that charge, nor did the court make any factual findings regarding it. The court further explained that a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a plea agreement does not amount to an acquittal or the attachment of jeopardy unless the court resolves factual elements of the offense. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the plea in bar, holding that double jeopardy protections did not bar the felony assault prosecution. View "State v. Holland" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to a situation at Christopher McKinney’s home after he threatened self-harm and subsequently engaged in an armed standoff. During the incident, Christopher pointed a shotgun at officers and made threats involving several firearms and large amounts of ammunition. Law enforcement executed search and arrest warrants, seizing numerous firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Christopher later pleaded no contest to a charge of terroristic threats, with other charges—including use of a firearm to commit a felony—dismissed as part of the agreement. Following his conviction and sentence, the State sought court authorization to destroy the seized firearms and ammunition.After Christopher’s direct appeal concluded, the State filed a petition in the District Court for Otoe County to destroy the seized property, claiming it had been used in the commission of a crime and was no longer needed as evidence. David McKinney, Christopher’s father, moved to intervene, asserting that Christopher had gifted him all interest in the seized property before sentencing. The State objected, arguing David had no ownership interest and thus lacked standing. The district court allowed David to intervene but ultimately ordered destruction of all seized property, finding that most items were derivative contraband used in the commission of a crime, and that Christopher could not transfer ownership while the property was in custody.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether David had standing and whether the property was properly classified as contraband. The Supreme Court held that David had standing because he claimed ownership. The Court affirmed the destruction order for all items except one firearm—the Marlin .17 HMR—which had not been used in the crime. As to that item, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine if a valid transfer to David occurred, which would determine proper disposition of that firearm. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

An eight-year-old child, N.R., alleged that her father, Gerald Roberson, had sexually abused her over several years, with the most recent incident occurring two months before she was taken by her mother to a hospital for a sexual assault examination. While the examination found no physical evidence of abuse, N.R. gave a detailed statement about repeated abuse and indicated that Roberson threatened her to keep her silent. Roberson was charged with multiple serious offenses relating to sexual abuse of a child.The State moved before trial to allow N.R. to testify remotely using closed-circuit television (CCTV), citing a Delaware statute permitting such testimony for children under certain conditions. After a hearing that included expert testimony from N.R.’s counselor about the child’s fear and likely inability to communicate in her father’s presence, the Superior Court found that remote testimony was warranted and that the statute permitting it did not violate the Delaware Constitution. The court also denied Roberson’s request for a limiting instruction after the prosecutor, during closing arguments, asked the jury to consider why a child would endure the ordeal of reporting and testifying if her claims were untrue. The jury convicted Roberson on all counts, and he was sentenced to 125 years in prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether the statutory procedure allowing child witnesses to testify by CCTV violated the state constitutional right to confront witnesses “face to face,” and whether the prosecutor’s closing argument constituted impermissible vouching for the witness’s credibility. The Court held that the statute does not violate the Delaware Constitution, relying on precedent that interprets the confrontation right to allow such procedures in the interest of protecting child victims while preserving the defendant’s right to cross-examination. The Court also found that the prosecutor’s comments did not amount to misconduct. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Roberson v. State" on Justia Law