Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tangtang Zhao, a pharmacist at Walgreens, took blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from his workplace and sold them on eBay for personal profit. Zhao was charged with and convicted on twelve counts of theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. He appealed, arguing that the government did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the vaccination cards were government property when he took them. He also challenged the trial judge’s response to the jury’s question about the definition of government property and parts of the jury instructions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Zhao’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. Zhao was sentenced to one year of probation and fined $5,600. He renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the government presented sufficient evidence that it maintained supervision and control over the vaccination cards, which retained their federal character. The court found that the government’s restrictions on the use and distribution of the cards, its right to inspect and access the cards, and its ability to terminate Walgreens’ participation in the vaccination program were sufficient to prove that the cards were government property.The appellate court also held that the district court did not err in its response to the jury’s question or in its jury instructions. The court concluded that the instructions were correct statements of the law and that the district court acted within its discretion. The appellate court affirmed Zhao’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v Zhao" on Justia Law

In 1985, the petitioner was sentenced by the Los Angeles County Superior Court (LASC) to 15 years to life plus seven years for murder. While serving this sentence, he was found with methamphetamine in 1997 and subsequently sentenced by the Kern County Superior Court (KSC) in 1998 to an additional eight years, to be served consecutively. In July 2024, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) notified both courts that the petitioner qualified for compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2. The KSC denied the petition, while the LASC granted it and ordered the CDCR to release the petitioner. However, the CDCR refused to release him, citing the unserved eight-year sentence from the KSC.The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court, which ordered the CDCR to show cause why the writ should not be granted, questioning the compatibility of sections 1172.2 and 1170.1(c). The case was transferred to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The appellate court reviewed the case and concluded that section 1172.2, which mandates a single court to resolve compassionate release petitions, is reconcilable with section 1170.1(c), which governs consecutive sentences for in-prison offenses.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that section 1172.2 requires a single court to handle compassionate release petitions and that the KSC, as the last court to impose a sentence, was the appropriate court to rule on the petition. The court found that the statutes were not irreconcilable and denied the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The order to show cause was discharged, and the petitioner’s request for release was denied. View "In re Brissette" on Justia Law

Jesus Zambrano was convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois state court in 2013. The Illinois Appellate Court later found that the trial court erred by not giving a jury instruction on accomplice liability, leading to a retrial where Zambrano was acquitted. Zambrano then filed a federal lawsuit against Detective Patrick Schumacher and sought indemnification from the City of Joliet, alleging that Schumacher fabricated evidence, violating his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.The case involved the murder of Robert Gooch, who was shot at his girlfriend's apartment in May 2009. Key evidence included testimonies and surveillance videos placing Zambrano at the scene. Detective Schumacher's police report stated that Zambrano identified his friends and the location of his girlfriend's apartment, which Zambrano claimed was false.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Zambrano failed to provide sufficient evidence that Schumacher deliberately falsified evidence in bad faith or that the alleged fabrication was material to his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Zambrano did not present enough evidence to show that Schumacher knowingly falsified the police report or acted in bad faith. Additionally, the court found that the alleged fabricated evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial, as it did not affect the jury's judgment. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld. View "Zambrano v City of Joliet" on Justia Law

Edwin Tavarez acted as a courier for his brother's illegal cocaine business, delivering cocaine to a restaurant in Lakewood, Ohio. After his brother's death, Tavarez continued the operation until he was arrested in February 2019. Authorities found him in possession of two kilograms of cocaine. In July 2019, Tavarez was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and use of a communications facility in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He pled guilty to the first two charges, and the third was dismissed. Tavarez was sentenced to 18 months in prison and four years of supervised release, including one year of home detention.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Tavarez's motions for compassionate release in September 2021, reducing his sentence to time served and extending his home detention. In June 2022, the court terminated the special condition of home detention. In June 2023, Tavarez filed a pro se motion for early termination of supervised release, citing good behavior and mishandling of his earned time credit. The district court denied the motion in a summary order and also denied his subsequent motion for access to the underlying documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) does not impede their review of the district court's denial of Tavarez's early termination motion. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by not demonstrating that it considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors when denying the motion. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying early termination of supervised release and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Tavarez's motion for access to documents, as there was no obligation to disclose the supervision report or its content. View "United States v. Tavarez" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. The trial court also ordered the defendant to undergo an HIV test and to stay away from his ex-wife and three of his children. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by allowing speculative testimony, ordering the HIV test, and issuing a no-contact order with his ex-wife and two of his children.The Tuolumne County Superior Court initially charged the defendant with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of lewd conduct against a child. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts but hung on the substantial sexual conduct enhancements. The prosecution did not retry the enhancements. The trial court reversed the convictions on the lewd conduct counts and sentenced the defendant to 12 years for the continuous sexual abuse count. The court also ordered the defendant to undergo HIV testing and issued a protective order against his ex-wife and two of his children.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction but found that the trial court erred in ordering the HIV test and including the defendant’s ex-wife and two of his children in the protective order. The appellate court vacated the HIV test order and the protective order as it pertained to the ex-wife and two children. The court directed the trial court to amend the protective order to reflect that it was issued under the correct statutory basis and that only the victim, T.W., was to be protected. The case was remanded to the Tuolumne County Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "P. v. Walts" on Justia Law

In 2007, Angel Eduardo Ramos was involved in a gang-related shooting where he was identified as the shooter. Ramos pleaded guilty to attempted murder and related crimes, receiving a 19-year prison sentence. In 2022, Ramos filed a petition under Penal Code section 1172.6 to vacate his attempted murder conviction. During the evidentiary hearing, the trial court admitted transcripts from the trial of Ramos's codefendant, Cordero, who was convicted of aiding and abetting the attempted murder. The court found Ramos to be the actual shooter and denied his petition.The Orange County Superior Court initially handled Ramos's case, where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Ramos later filed his petition for vacatur and resentencing under section 1172.6, which led to an evidentiary hearing. The trial court admitted the transcripts from Cordero’s trial over Ramos’s objection and denied the petition based on the evidence presented.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that under section 1172.6 (d)(3), evidence from "any prior hearing or trial" is admissible if it is admissible under current law. The court found that the trial court did not err in admitting the transcripts from Cordero’s trial, as the statute allows for such evidence to be considered. The court emphasized that section 1172.6 aims to ensure that a petitioner’s punishment is commensurate with their actions, and the evidence showed that Ramos was the actual shooter. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Ramos’s petition for vacatur and resentencing. View "P. v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Javarese Holmes was identified as a suspect in an arson and drug dealing case. Police stopped him while driving and found a gun and drugs in his car. They obtained a warrant to search a residence they believed was his, finding another gun, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia. Holmes was charged and convicted of possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute, illegally possessing firearms as a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug crimes.In the district court, Holmes moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his car and the residence, arguing the searches were unlawful. The court denied the motions, ruling the car search was a permissible inventory search and the residence search warrant was valid. At trial, the court admitted text messages from Holmes’s phone under Rule 404(b) and allowed a drug enforcement agent to testify as an expert on firearm usage among street-level dealers. Holmes was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the inventory search of Holmes’s car was valid despite not being completed, as the initial search was reasonable and within department policy. The court also found the search warrant for the residence was supported by probable cause, linking Holmes to the residence and criminal activity. The text messages were deemed admissible under Rule 404(b) as they were relevant to Holmes’s intent and not unduly prejudicial. The expert testimony was allowed, as the agent was qualified and his testimony was helpful to the jury. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Holmes’s convictions for the firearm offenses. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Holmes" on Justia Law

In January 2013, Stanislav “Steven” Yelizarov robbed a jewelry store after a series of serious events, including home burglaries and kidnapping. He received a thirty-year sentence for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery. Over eight years, Yelizarov agreed to two plea deals, filed two motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was sentenced twice, and had three judges decide parts of his cases. He appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that his sentence was unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially sentenced Yelizarov to 360 months based on a plea agreement. After learning of a potential murder charge, Yelizarov renegotiated a plea deal, which included a waiver of appeal. He later filed a § 2255 motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing his attorney failed to advise him properly about the murder charge and its implications. The district court denied the motion, finding no prejudice from the attorney’s actions, as Yelizarov was aware of the potential murder charge and chose to plead guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Yelizarov was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The court found that Yelizarov knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence, including claims of procedural and substantive unreasonableness. The court dismissed his appeal regarding the reasonableness of his sentence, enforcing the waiver of appeal in his plea agreement. The court emphasized that a failure to mention specific sentencing factors does not constitute procedural unreasonableness. The decision was affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "US v. Yelizarov" on Justia Law

David Berryhill, Jr. was pulled over by Oklahoma Highway Patrol for a traffic violation. During the stop, a K-9 unit alerted to his vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered a significant amount of methamphetamine and cash. Berryhill admitted to transporting the drugs for payment. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Berryhill. He requested a mitigating-role adjustment, arguing he was merely a courier. The court denied this request, finding his role more significant based on the quantity of drugs and his involvement in the trafficking operation. Berryhill was sentenced to 168 months in prison.Berryhill appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing the district court applied the wrong legal standard by not comparing his role to other participants in the criminal activity. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the district court's error in not conducting a relative-culpability analysis but concluded the error was not clear or obvious due to ambiguous language in prior case law. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Berryhill’s sentence, holding that while the district court erred, the error did not meet the plain-error standard’s requirement of being clear or obvious. View "United States v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated assault by a life prisoner, and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. The jury found true special circumstances for a prior murder and an intentional killing while lying in wait. The trial court imposed the death sentence for the murder and stayed the remaining terms. The defendant appealed.In the lower court, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges due to a 27-month pre-charging delay, arguing that it caused prejudice by the loss of two critical defense witnesses. The trial court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice. The defendant also moved for acquittal under section 1118.1, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation and lying in wait, which the trial court denied. Additionally, the defendant challenged the admission of evidence under Evidence Code section 1103, which the trial court allowed, and the court's instructions to the jury, which the defendant claimed were erroneous.In the Supreme Court of California, the court reviewed several claims, including the denial of the motion to dismiss for pre-charging delay, the sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance, and the admission of evidence under Evidence Code section 1103. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings. The court also addressed claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and instructional errors, finding no reversible error. The court upheld the trial court's decisions and affirmed the judgment, including the death sentence. View "P. v. Barrett" on Justia Law