Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Edward J. Zakrzewski, II, was sentenced to death for the murders of his wife, Sylvia, and two minor children, Edward and Anna, which he committed on June 9, 1994. Zakrzewski pled guilty to all three murders and was sentenced to death for each, with the trial court overriding the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment for Anna's murder. The trial court found three aggravating factors for each murder and gave significant weight to both statutory and nonstatutory mitigators.On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Zakrzewski’s convictions and sentences. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review, making the sentences final. Over the next three decades, Zakrzewski sought postconviction relief multiple times in both state and federal courts, all of which were denied. His federal habeas petition was denied by the Northern District of Florida, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. Zakrzewski also filed several motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, all of which were denied by the Florida Supreme Court.Governor Ron DeSantis signed Zakrzewski’s death warrant on July 1, 2025, setting an execution date of July 31, 2025. Zakrzewski filed his fifth successive motion for postconviction relief, raising three claims, which the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit summarily denied. Zakrzewski appealed the denial, raising four arguments.The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court’s summary denial of Zakrzewski’s fifth successive postconviction motion. The court found Zakrzewski’s claims untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless. The court also rejected Zakrzewski’s claims regarding the Governor’s discretion in signing death warrants and the lack of a recent clemency review. Additionally, the court upheld the circuit court’s denial of Zakrzewski’s requests for public records, finding no abuse of discretion. The court denied Zakrzewski’s motion for a stay of execution and request for oral argument. View "Zakrzewski v. State" on Justia Law

Adam Urda attended a gathering where he attempted to start a bonfire with motor oil and racecar fuel, resulting in an explosion that injured him, another adult, and a four-year-old girl. The girl was severely injured and required extensive medical treatment. Trooper Jeffrey Sokso investigated the incident, interviewed witnesses, and filed a criminal complaint against Urda for aggravated assault, risking a catastrophe, and recklessly endangering another person. The charges were approved by an assistant district attorney. However, a magistrate judge dismissed the first two charges, and the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the third charge, finding no probable cause.Urda then sued Sokso in federal court for unlawful seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for Sokso on the abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied it on the remaining claims, rejecting Sokso's qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that qualified immunity protects Sokso. The court found that Urda did not provide any precedent showing that Sokso's actions violated clearly established law. The court emphasized that qualified immunity shields officers unless it is clear to a reasonable officer that their conduct was unlawful. The court concluded that Sokso's actions did not rise to the level of an obvious constitutional violation and that the District Court had defined the right too abstractly. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of summary judgment on the remaining claims, granting Sokso qualified immunity. View "Urda v. Sokso" on Justia Law

Mohamed Ahmed Hassan was convicted of four counts of bank robbery, with all incidents captured on surveillance cameras. The robberies occurred in January 2022 at Chase Bank branches in San Diego, California. The robber, who wore a face mask and hat in three of the four incidents, demanded money from tellers and escaped with approximately $15,400. Hassan was arrested by the FBI shortly after the fourth robbery. The prosecution presented surveillance footage and rideshare and cell phone records linking Hassan to the crimes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California held a bench trial after Hassan waived his right to a jury trial. The court found Hassan guilty on all counts, relying primarily on the surveillance footage. The court did not consider the rideshare and cell phone records as conclusive evidence tying Hassan to the robberies. Hassan appealed, arguing that the district court improperly relied on extrinsic evidence by comparing his in-court appearance to the surveillance footage and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the trier of fact may identify a defendant by comparing their in-court appearance to photographic or video evidence. The court found that the district court did not rely on extrinsic evidence and that the visual comparison, along with other available information, was sufficient to establish Hassan's guilt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

Two children, a nine-year-old girl and her eight-year-old brother, reported sexual abuse by their stepfather, who lived with them and their mother. After the children disclosed the abuse to a nurse practitioner, law enforcement obtained consent to search the family’s residence, seizing a red iPhone and the children’s bedding. Investigators discovered that the stepfather had shared child pornography via the Mega file-sharing service. Upon questioning, he admitted ownership of the phone, provided its password, and consented to its search. Investigators found videos on the phone and Mega account depicting the children in sexually explicit situations, with the stepfather’s voice directing them. DNA evidence linked him to semen found on the children’s bedding.A grand jury indicted the stepfather on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of committing those offenses while on the sex offender registry, and one count of possession of child pornography. After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the court found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to 720 months in prison and a life term of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, even though the district court did not explicitly address each of the Dost factors for lascivious exhibition. The court also found no abuse of discretion or plain error in the admission of testimony from a prior victim, the nurse practitioner, or the forensic scientist, nor in the admission of a partially completed Miranda waiver form. The sentence was deemed reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. En Maati" on Justia Law

Adan Shamburger pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. Initially, the district court determined an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment but varied upward and imposed a 48-month sentence, citing the lethality of fentanyl, Shamburger's distribution activities, violent tendencies, high risk of recidivism, and criminal history. Following a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which altered the calculation of criminal history scores, Shamburger's advisory guideline range was reduced to 24-30 months. Consequently, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas initially sentenced Shamburger to 48 months. After the Sentencing Commission's Amendment 821, which was made retroactive, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months. Shamburger argued that the reduction was unreasonable and that the court should have shortened his sentence further, given the new advisory guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Shamburger's sentence by only two months. The court explained that there is no presumption that a sentence reduction must be proportional to the original sentence within the new advisory range. The district court's decision to impose a sentence close to the original term, despite the lower amended guideline range, was deemed permissible. The appellate court also found no procedural error, as the district court adequately explained its reasoning by referencing its previous discussion of the § 3553(a) factors and the seriousness of the offense conduct. View "United States v. Shamburger" on Justia Law

Federal agents conducted a "buy-bust" operation in Des Moines, Iowa, targeting Aldo Ali Cordova Perez, Jr., who was driving a gold Dodge Durango. During the operation, Cordova Perez attempted to flee, leading to a high-speed chase that ended with his arrest. Officers found a large quantity of methamphetamine in his vehicle and a small bag of marijuana in his pocket. Cordova Perez admitted to using marijuana daily and owning a .22-caliber rifle, which was found in his home.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa tried Cordova Perez on multiple charges, including possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user. The jury acquitted him of all charges except for the firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court denied his motion for acquittal, finding the statute constitutional both facially and as applied, and sentenced him to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, citing the need to reassess the as-applied challenge in light of United States v. Cooper. The court instructed the district court to determine whether Cordova Perez's marijuana use caused him to act dangerously or posed a credible threat to others' safety with a firearm. The court emphasized that the district court should make explicit findings on whether his conduct was consistent with historical firearm regulations. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

William Dahl was charged with production and receipt of child pornography based on two separate incidents. In the first, Dahl, then 36, communicated with a 16-year-old girl, S, via social media, provided her with gifts, and received a nude video from her over Snapchat. In the second incident, Dahl engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the mother of a seven-year-old girl, M, who then produced and sent Dahl images of M’s genitals. Dahl admitted to receiving both the video and the images but claimed he intended to turn the images over to police and believed S was 17.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri conducted a bench trial and found Dahl guilty of production of child pornography and two counts of receipt of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court ordered Dahl’s federal sentence to run consecutively to sentences in six pending Missouri state cases. However, the record was unclear as to whether the court intended the federal sentence to run consecutively to state sentences involving the same victims or relevant conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing order. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the materials received by Dahl constituted child pornography under federal law, applying the Dost factors as required by circuit precedent. The court affirmed Dahl’s convictions. However, because of ambiguity regarding whether the federal sentence was intended to run consecutively to all state sentences or only those unrelated to the federal offenses, the Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for the district court to clarify its sentencing intent. View "United States v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Anthony Glover appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search of DaKnea Brewer’s apartment, which he argues was conducted unlawfully. On September 16, 2020, Metropolitan Police Department officers went to Brewer’s home looking for her brothers under an arrest warrant. Officer Eldrick Creamer asked Brewer if he could come in to discuss something important about her brothers. Brewer allowed him in, and after some conversation, Officer Creamer mentioned he had “warrants” and needed to visually check the apartment. Brewer consented, and during the search, officers found Glover and a firearm, leading to his arrest.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held a suppression hearing where Officer Creamer testified. The court found that Brewer’s consent to the search was voluntary, noting the officers’ polite and non-threatening demeanor. The court concluded that Brewer understood the warrants to be arrest warrants and not search warrants, and thus denied Glover’s motion to suppress the evidence. Glover then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not adequately consider whether Officer Creamer’s statements about having “warrants” and needing to search the apartment rendered Brewer’s consent mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. The appellate court held that the district court misapplied the legal standard from Bumper v. North Carolina, which requires careful consideration of whether consent was voluntary or coerced by a claim of lawful authority. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order and Glover’s conviction, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law

In 2019, the defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of burglary and robbery. During the plea colloquy, he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and stated he was born in New York, despite being born in Mexico. The presentence report noted his birthplace as Mexico but left many fields blank. At sentencing, the defendant's counsel, Carol Wentworth, reviewed the report with him, and he confirmed his U.S. citizenship. The court sentenced him to five years of Recovery Court Probation. After violating probation terms, the defendant was sentenced to five years' incarceration.The defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not being informed of the immigration consequences of his plea. The PCR court found sentencing counsel ineffective for not investigating discrepancies in the presentence report and granted the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed in part, agreeing that counsel failed to advise the defendant of deportation risks but remanded for further consideration on whether the defendant could withdraw his plea.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that sentencing counsel was not constitutionally ineffective. The court found that the counsel's performance was not deficient as the presentence report did not clearly indicate non-citizenship, and the defendant repeatedly asserted his U.S. citizenship. The court emphasized that no court has required independent verification of a client's citizenship status beyond asking the client. The court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded to the PCR court for entry of an order denying the defendant's petition. View "State v. Hernandez-Peralta" on Justia Law

A thirteen-year-old girl, D.C., reported to her stepmother that her stepfather, Edgar Rene Garcia-Limon, had sexually abused her over several years, beginning when she was about four and continuing until she was eleven. During the investigation, D.C. described multiple incidents of abuse, and Garcia-Limon admitted to law enforcement and his wife that he had sexually touched D.C. on several occasions. Law enforcement also found firearms in the home, leading to additional charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Garcia-Limon on four counts: felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, abusive sexual contact in Indian Country, and illegal reentry. Garcia-Limon challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for the sexual abuse counts, arguing that the eight-year date range was too broad and that the counts improperly charged a scheme rather than specific acts. The district court denied his motions, finding that the indictment properly charged a scheme of abuse and that the counts were not constitutionally defective or duplicitous. At trial, the jury found Garcia-Limon guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms, including life sentences for the sexual abuse counts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the indictment was constitutionally sufficient, whether the statutes allowed charging a scheme of abuse, whether the indictment was duplicitous, and whether there was a constructive amendment at trial. The court held that the indictment met constitutional requirements, that the statutes permitted charging a scheme of repeated, similar acts in a single count, and that there was no unconstitutional duplicity or constructive amendment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Garcia-Limon’s convictions on the challenged counts. View "United States v. Garcia-Limon" on Justia Law