Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A 39-year-old man developed a relationship with a 16-year-old girl, his coworker, and began exchanging sexually explicit messages and images with her over Facebook. He instructed the minor to take and send him photos and videos of herself engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Forensic analysis confirmed the minor complied with these requests on multiple occasions. The man admitted to using a Facebook alias, knowing the girl’s age, and exchanging sexual content with her. He was indicted for two counts of causing a minor to produce child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of causing a minor to produce child pornography, and the remaining charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, at sentencing, applied two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements: a two-level increase for using a minor to commit the offense, and a five-level increase for engaging in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct. The defendant objected to both enhancements, arguing they were either duplicative or improperly applied. The district court overruled his objections and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 270 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the enhancements. The court held that the two-level enhancement for using a minor to commit the offense was appropriate because the Guidelines did not otherwise account for the defendant’s use of the minor as both the subject and the photographer of the images. The court also upheld the five-level enhancement for a pattern of activity, finding that two separate occasions of prohibited sexual conduct were established and that the relevant conduct could include acts beyond the offense of conviction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Parkey" on Justia Law

The defendant was found guilty of felony possession of a firearm after a bench trial, having waived his right to a jury trial. The case arose from a traffic stop on December 5, 2020, where the defendant was stopped for driving past a stop bar at a traffic light. During the stop, the defendant refused to provide identification and was subsequently arrested. A search of his vehicle revealed marijuana and a loaded firearm. The defendant challenged the traffic stop, his arrest, and the vehicle search as violations of his Fourth Amendment rights and argued that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that the initial traffic stop was supported by probable cause, the arrest was justified by probable cause, and the vehicle search was permissible under the automobile exception. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the stipulated facts presented during the bench trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that the traffic stop was justified by probable cause due to the observed traffic violation. The arrest was deemed lawful based on probable cause for multiple offenses, including driving with a suspended license and refusing to provide identification. The search of the vehicle was upheld under the automobile exception, as the officers had probable cause to believe it contained illegal contraband. The court also found that the defendant's stipulation to all elements of the offense constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

Defendants James Vlha and Travis Schlotterbeck were convicted for conspiring to manufacture firearms for sale without a federal license and for selling a firearm to a felon, respectively. They engaged in manufacturing and selling semiautomatic AR-15 firearms without a license in Bellflower, California, and sold these firearms to undercover agents and a confidential informant believed to be a felon. They were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and § 922(d)(1). Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statutes violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied their motion. They entered conditional pleas and appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment. The defendants then entered conditional pleas, preserving their right to appeal the district court's decision. They timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The court held that the Second Amendment does not protect the conduct regulated by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) because requiring commercial firearm manufacturers to obtain licenses does not meaningfully constrain would-be purchasers from obtaining firearms. The court also held that Schlotterbeck’s facial and as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) fail because the prohibition on selling firearms to felons does not meaningfully constrain the possessory rights of felons, who do not have possessory rights under the Second Amendment. The court concluded that the text of the Second Amendment does not cover the conduct regulated by these statutes, and thus, the defendants' constitutional challenges fail. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA V. VLHA" on Justia Law

The defendant was arrested by the Rhode Island State Police on January 13, 2017, following allegations of child molestation by the complainant, A.R. During the post-arrest interview, the defendant admitted to various instances of sexual contact with A.R. Subsequently, the state filed a ten-count criminal information against the defendant, including eight counts of second-degree child molestation. The defendant moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his due process rights and Rule 5(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. He also sought to introduce expert testimony on false confessions, which the state moved to preclude.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, finding that his statements were made voluntarily and that the delay in presentment to the District Court was not causative of his confession. The court also granted the state's motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony on false confessions, reasoning that it would invade the jury's province and that effective cross-examination of the police would suffice. The jury found the defendant guilty on five counts of second-degree child molestation, and the trial justice denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion to suppress, as the defendant's statements were made voluntarily under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also upheld the exclusion of the expert testimony on false confessions, agreeing that it would improperly influence the jury's role in determining credibility. Finally, the Court found no error in the trial justice's denial of the motion for a new trial, as the trial justice had appropriately evaluated the evidence and witness credibility. View "State v. Coletta" on Justia Law

The case involves the appeal of Lev Aslan Dermen, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering offenses, and money laundering. The charges stem from a scheme orchestrated by Dermen and his co-conspirators to file false claims for federal biofuel incentives, resulting in over $500 million in fraudulent payouts. The scheme involved laundering the fraud proceeds through various channels, including domestic and foreign entities and accounts.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Utah conducted a seven-week trial, after which the jury convicted Dermen on all counts. Dermen was sentenced to forty years in prison and ordered to forfeit assets and pay a money judgment. Dermen raised several issues on appeal, including juror misconduct, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial, alleged Brady violations, improper expert testimony, insufficient evidence for some convictions, and errors in sentencing and forfeiture orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Dermen's appeal. The court rejected all of Dermen's arguments, affirming the lower court's decisions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of juror misconduct and the impact of COVID-19. It also held that the alleged Brady violations were not material, the expert testimony was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the sentencing and forfeiture orders, finding no error in the district court's application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and its admission of hearsay evidence in the forfeiture proceedings. View "United States v. Dermen" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers suspected Bandak Wiyual Deng of involvement in a shooting at a park on February 10, 2022. Surveillance video showed an individual matching his characteristics exiting a car with what appeared to be a gun. The car, a black Ford Taurus, lacked a license plate or paper registration tag. A confidential informant recorded a conversation with Deng, where Deng mentioned needing a gun for a funeral and a previous shooting. On the day of the funeral, officers stopped Deng, found marijuana and a gun in his car, and Deng admitted to using drugs and touching the gun.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa upheld the government's peremptory strikes of two prospective jurors and refused to admit parts of Deng's interview with law enforcement. Deng's motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was denied. The jury convicted Deng.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in overruling Deng’s objections to the peremptory strikes, as the government provided race-neutral explanations. The court also found that any potential error in the district court's evidentiary rulings was harmless, given the ample evidence supporting Deng’s conviction. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Deng’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, rejecting his facial challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Deng" on Justia Law

Edgar Pratt was on supervised release after serving a prison term for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He violated the terms of his release multiple times, including accessing a firearm, communicating with a prohibited party, sending threatening messages, and absconding from a residential reentry center. After absconding, he ceased communication with his probation officer and failed to complete the reentry program. He was arrested eight months later.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held a hearing, revoked Pratt's supervised release, and sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Pratt appealed, challenging the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court adequately explained its decision, noting Pratt's extensive criminal history and resistance to supervision. The district court's reference to Pratt's "bobbles" while on supervision was not plain error, as the court was familiar with his history. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, including Pratt's criminal history and characteristics. The court held that the district court did not place undue weight on improper factors and acted within its discretion in imposing the statutory maximum sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding Pratt's 24-month imprisonment sentence. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

Louis Rabbitt was convicted by a jury of failing to register as a sex offender, assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, and committing a crime of violence while failing to register as a sex offender. His probation officer testified that Rabbitt missed a scheduled meeting and was not found at his registered address. Deputy U.S. Marshals later found Rabbitt in a parked car, holding a metal baseball bat, and after a chase, he was captured and subdued.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Rabbitt's motion for a judgment of acquittal, which argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Rabbitt had moved out of his registered residence and failed to update his registration as required. Additionally, the court found that Rabbitt's actions with the baseball bat constituted a threat or display of physical aggression towards the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that sufficient evidence supported Rabbitt's convictions. The court found that Rabbitt knowingly failed to update his registration, used the bat to inspire fear in the officers, and that his actions were intentional. Consequently, the court upheld Rabbitt's convictions for failing to register as a sex offender, assaulting a federal officer, and committing a crime of violence while failing to register. View "United States v. Rabbitt" on Justia Law

In early 2023, investigators conducted six controlled buys of fentanyl pills from Tyran Locure, with Anthony Jackson, Jr. present for two of these buys, which took place in Jackson’s vehicle. A GPS tracker on Jackson’s vehicle showed it frequently parked at an apartment building in Des Moines, Iowa, where both Jackson and Locure were surveilled. A search warrant executed at the apartment found firearms, thousands of fentanyl pills, marijuana, cocaine, cell phones, and a money counter. Jackson’s wallet and documents were also found in the apartment, and $2,263 in cash, including serialized money from a controlled buy, was found on Jackson.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa charged Jackson with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of firearms. The jury convicted Jackson on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 270 months of imprisonment, revoked his supervised release, and added 30 months for violating supervised release terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Jackson’s appeal, which challenged the admission of a forensic report, evidence of prior bad acts, and the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy conviction. The court held that Jackson waived his confrontation rights by stipulating to the forensic report’s findings. The court also found that the admission of evidence of Jackson’s prior conviction and firearm photographs was proper and not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Jackson’s conspiracy conviction, given the controlled buys, GPS data, and items found during the search. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jere Eaton sued the City of Stamford and police officer Steven Estabrook, alleging that Estabrook used excessive force during a protest on August 8, 2020. Eaton claimed that Estabrook lifted her by her bra strap, drove her backward several feet, and dropped her on the ground without warning, violating her Fourteenth Amendment rights and committing assault and battery under Connecticut state law. Estabrook and the City of Stamford moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity and state governmental immunity.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that while there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Estabrook used excessive force, Estabrook was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. The court also granted summary judgment on Eaton’s state law claims, concluding that Estabrook was entitled to state governmental immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the use of excessive force. However, the appellate court concluded that Estabrook was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because the same factual disputes also affected whether his actions were clearly established as unconstitutional at the time. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision regarding state governmental immunity for the state law claims. View "Eaton v. Estabrook" on Justia Law