Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A criminal defendant was charged with murder and released on a $1 million bail bond posted by United States Fire Insurance Company. The trial court ordered the defendant to “return on any and all future hearing dates.” After his release, the defendant appeared personally at several hearings and later executed a Penal Code section 977 waiver, allowing his attorney to appear on his behalf at certain proceedings. On April 26, 2022, the defendant did not personally appear at a trial readiness conference, but his attorney appeared pursuant to the waiver. The court continued the hearing and ordered the defendant to be personally present at the next hearing. The defendant subsequently failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing, and the court forfeited the bail bond.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied United’s motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, finding the motion barred by res judicata. United argued that the court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond because it did not do so at the defendant’s first unexcused failure to appear, claiming the section 977 waiver was ineffective for the trial readiness conference and that the court’s prior order required personal appearance. United’s subsequent appeal of the summary judgment was dismissed as untimely, but its appeal of the order denying the motion to set aside summary judgment was considered.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside summary judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court was not required to forfeit the bond when the defendant appeared through counsel pursuant to a valid section 977 waiver at the trial readiness conference. The court further held that the order for the defendant to “return on any and all future hearing dates” did not require personal attendance at all hearings, and California Rules of Court, rule 4.112, did not prohibit waiver of personal presence at a trial readiness conference. Thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to forfeit the bond at the later date. View "People v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In late 2020 and early 2021, Massachusetts law enforcement investigated a suspected drug trafficking organization operating in the South Shore area. The investigation focused on two apartments believed to be used for storing and distributing drugs, and a blue Jeep Grand Cherokee linked to the organization. On January 11, 2021, officers executed state search warrants at both apartments, recovering large quantities of narcotics, cash, firearms, and drug-trafficking equipment. Earlier that day, officers conducted a warrantless stop of the Jeep, driven by Aderito Patrick Amado, and found additional drugs and cash. Amado was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, fentanyl analogue, and cocaine; three counts of possession with intent to distribute those substances; two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms; and one count of possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Amado’s motion to suppress evidence from the Jeep, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop. After a nine-day trial, a jury convicted Amado on all counts except one firearm-in-furtherance charge. The district court sentenced him to a total of 384 months’ imprisonment, within the advisory Guidelines range, and ten years of supervised release. Amado appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion, the application of an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, his designation as a career offender, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence compared to a co-defendant’s shorter term.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of the Jeep, the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was warranted due to Amado’s perjury at trial, and the career-offender designation was proper and did not affect the advisory range. The court also found no substantive sentencing error, noting material differences between Amado and his co-defendant. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Amado" on Justia Law

Two individuals were involved in a drug-trafficking operation distributing fentanyl and methamphetamine in the Lexington, Kentucky area. One supplied the drugs, which were pressed to resemble oxycodone pills, to the other, who then sold them to others. Both were apprehended after law enforcement used confidential informants and controlled buys. The supplier pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, while the other pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute drugs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced the supplier to 228 months in prison and the other individual to 74 months, also imposing supervised release conditions. Both defendants challenged the procedural reasonableness of their sentences, specifically contesting the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(13) for knowingly misrepresenting or marketing fentanyl as another substance. The second defendant also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, improper denial of a downward departure for reduced mental capacity, and an improper special condition of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement: the supplier knowingly misrepresented fentanyl as oxycodone, and the other knowingly marketed fentanyl as another substance, given the pills’ appearance and his knowledge of their contents. The court found no error in the district court’s reliance on a cooperating witness’s statement or in its findings regarding the defendants’ knowledge. The appellate court declined to address the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal due to an insufficient record, found the denial of a downward departure unreviewable, and upheld the special condition of supervised release. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Officers investigating a drug trafficking ring observed Devin Long engaging in several suspected drug transactions, including controlled buys involving other individuals. Surveillance revealed Long’s repeated visits to known stash houses and his own registered residence, where officers witnessed activity consistent with drug dealing. Based on these observations and information from a confidential source, officers obtained a warrant to search Long’s home. The search uncovered illegal drugs, firearms, and related paraphernalia, leading to Long’s indictment on federal drug and firearm charges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed Long’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his home, which argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his alleged criminal activity and the residence. The district court denied the motion, finding that the affidavit provided probable cause for the search. Long subsequently pleaded guilty to four charges but preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether the search warrant for Long’s home was supported by probable cause. Applying a deferential standard to the issuing magistrate judge’s determination, the Sixth Circuit held that the affidavit established both that Long’s home was his residence and that he was engaged in ongoing drug trafficking. The court further found that even a single drug transaction observed outside Long’s home provided an independent basis for probable cause. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Long’s motion to suppress, concluding that the warrant was properly issued under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

The case concerns the former President and CEO of a New Orleans-based commercial bank, who was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and making false entries in bank records. The evidence at trial showed that he, along with other bank employees and borrowers, engaged in a scheme to misrepresent the creditworthiness of certain borrowers. This allowed the bank to issue loans to insolvent individuals, who then used the proceeds to pay off overdue and overdraft loans, thereby concealing the true financial state of the bank’s loan portfolio. The defendant did not dispute the existence of these loans but argued that he lacked the intent to defraud the bank.After the bank failed in 2017, resulting in significant losses to the FDIC, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant and several co-conspirators. Some co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the defendant proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 170 months in prison and ordered to pay substantial restitution. The district court denied his post-trial motions for acquittal, arrest of judgment, and a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the admission of lay and summary testimony, and the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the government’s handling of privileged emails. The Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions, the jury instructions were proper and tracked the relevant law, the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and the government’s conduct regarding privileged material did not warrant dismissal. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict in full. View "USA v. Ryan" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer in Jackson County, Kansas, observed a vehicle with a license plate that was slanting to the right and visibly moving, described as "flapping in the wind." The officer initiated a traffic stop based on the belief that the license plate was not securely fastened as required by Kansas law. During the stop, the officer discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, and an open container of alcohol in the purse of a passenger, who initially provided a false name. The passenger was subsequently charged with several offenses, including possession of methamphetamine and transportation of liquor in an open container.The passenger moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the license plate was otherwise legible and visible. The Jackson District Court denied the motion, relying on the officer’s testimony and persuasive federal authority interpreting the relevant Kansas statute. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted the passenger on all counts. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that under K.S.A. 8-133(c), a license plate must be securely fastened to the vehicle, in addition to being visible and legible. The court found that the officer’s observation of the plate hanging askew and moving provided reasonable suspicion of a statutory violation, justifying the traffic stop. The court affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, holding that the stop was lawful and the evidence was properly admitted. View "State v. Yeargin-Charles " on Justia Law

Kenneth Courtright operated Today’s Growth Consultant (TGC), also known as The Income Store, which promised investors guaranteed, perpetual monthly payments based on website advertising revenue. Investors, called “site partners,” paid upfront fees under Consulting Performance Agreements (CPAs), which stated that these fees would be used exclusively for website-related expenses and that TGC was in satisfactory financial condition. In reality, TGC’s advertising revenue and business loans were insufficient to meet its payment obligations, and Courtright used new investors’ upfront fees to pay existing investors, misrepresenting the company’s financial health and the use of funds.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over Courtright’s criminal trial for seven counts of wire fraud. The government presented evidence of TGC’s financial shortfall and improper use of upfront fees, including testimony from employees and financial experts. The jury convicted Courtright on all counts. At sentencing, the parties debated the loss calculation, with the court ultimately adopting a $69.3 million loss figure and granting certain deductions, resulting in a final loss amount of $52.5 million. Courtright was sentenced to 90 months in prison and two years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Courtright’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the loss calculation. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Courtright guilty of wire fraud, as he made material false statements about the use of upfront fees and TGC’s financial condition, and acted with intent to defraud. The court also found that Courtright waived his causation argument regarding loss calculation and that the district court did not clearly err in denying deductions for operating expenses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "USA v Courtright" on Justia Law

Nita and Kirtish Patel operated two companies that provided mobile diagnostic medical services. To obtain Medicare reimbursement for neurological testing, they falsely represented that a licensed neurologist would supervise the tests. In reality, Kirtish, who lacked a medical license, wrote the reports, and Nita forged a physician’s signature. Their fraudulent scheme generated over $4 million, including substantial Medicare payments.In 2014, a former employee filed a sealed qui tam action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging healthcare fraud and asserting claims under the False Claims Act. The Patels were subsequently arrested and each pleaded guilty to one count of healthcare fraud. Their plea agreements did not address or preclude future civil or administrative actions. After their guilty pleas, the Government intervened in the qui tam action and obtained summary judgment against the Patels, relying on collateral estoppel from their criminal admissions. The District Court trebled the Medicare loss and imposed civil penalties, resulting in a judgment exceeding $7 million. Nita appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed her liability under the False Claims Act.Both Patels later moved to vacate their criminal sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because their attorneys did not advise them that their guilty pleas could have collateral estoppel effects in the civil qui tam action. The District Court denied their motions, finding that counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable and that the Patels were aware their plea agreements did not preclude civil actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Sixth Amendment does not require criminal defense counsel to advise clients of collateral consequences such as civil liability under the False Claims Act. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that Padilla v. Kentucky’s holding is limited to deportation consequences and does not extend to civil liability. View "Patel v. USA" on Justia Law

In 2023, Charlotte Chemuti was arrested by officers from the Mooresville Police Department for resisting a public officer. To prepare for her trial, Chemuti served a subpoena on the police department requesting body camera footage related to her arrest. The Town of Mooresville responded, arguing that the requested recordings were confidential under North Carolina General Statute § 132-1.4A and could only be released through the procedure outlined in that statute, not by subpoena.Chemuti subsequently filed a motion in the District Court of Iredell County, without notice to the town, seeking release of the recordings. The district court granted her request, finding that while the statutory petition in superior court was the generally accepted practice, it was not the exclusive method for obtaining such evidence, and ordered the town to comply with the subpoena. The town appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the order did not affect a substantial right. The town then petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for review.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that orders compelling disclosure of information protected by statutory confidentiality are immediately appealable, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. On the merits, the Supreme Court determined that N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A provides the exclusive procedure for obtaining law enforcement recordings in criminal cases, requiring a petition in superior court, and that district court subpoenas cannot be used to compel their release. The Court further held that this procedure does not violate constitutional rights to present a complete defense, as courts must still ensure defendants’ constitutional protections. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Chemuti" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers investigated a breaking and entering at a market in Fletcher, North Carolina, where cash, cigarettes, and lottery tickets were stolen. Days later, someone attempted to redeem one of the stolen lottery tickets at a store in Edneyville. Security footage showed a woman leaving the store and entering a black Dodge Durango with distinctive features. Detective Diaz traced the vehicle to a nearby residence, discovered it had a fictitious license plate, and observed items inside the vehicle that appeared related to the theft. Officers later conducted a search of the vehicle and the residence, recovering stolen property and tools linked to the crime.The Superior Court of Henderson County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, which argued that law enforcement’s observations at the residence and of the vehicle were improper without a warrant. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to several charges but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that probable cause existed for the search warrant and that officers acted lawfully at the scene. The majority also found that the inevitable discovery doctrine would apply, while a dissenting judge disagreed on both points.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that, even excluding information obtained during the contested “knock and talk,” the remaining facts in the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the vehicle. The Court did not decide whether the officers’ conduct during the knock and talk was unconstitutional, nor did it address the inevitable discovery doctrine. The Court modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the search warrant was properly issued based on probable cause supported by untainted evidence. View "State v. Norman" on Justia Law