Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Robdarius Williams participated in the robbery of an AT&T store, during which a confederate brandished a rifle at a store employee. Prior to the robbery, law enforcement, as part of an ongoing investigation, installed a GPS tracker on a car registered to Williams’s mother. Surveillance revealed Williams driving the car to pick up his accomplices, including Quintez Tucker, who was seen with a rifle. The group switched license plates and circled a shopping center before Tucker and another man entered the AT&T store, with one carrying the rifle visibly concealed. Inside, the rifle was displayed and pointed at an employee, and instructions were given via speakerphone by someone with a deep voice, which matched Williams’s description. The robbers fled in Williams’s car and were later apprehended.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana tried Williams on charges of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during a crime of violence. A jury convicted Williams on both counts. The district court sentenced him to a total of 114 months, including the mandatory minimum for brandishing. Williams did not move for a judgment of acquittal at trial.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Williams challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the aiding and abetting brandishing conviction, arguing the government failed to prove he had advance knowledge that the rifle would be brandished. Applying the plain error standard due to Williams’s failure to seek acquittal below, the Seventh Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude Williams had the requisite advance knowledge. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. View "USA v Williams" on Justia Law

An employee was hired by a nonprofit organization to help organize a fundraiser and was given access to a board member’s email account for work purposes. After a dispute about the nature of her employment, the employee resigned and requested payment for her services, but the organization stopped communicating with her and did not pay. The former employee, still having technical access to the email account, began accessing it, downloaded internal documents, and sent them to a friend. The friend subsequently threatened the organization with releasing these documents unless both were paid substantial sums. The organization eventually revoked the employee’s access and reported the matter to the authorities.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted both individuals on several counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer “without authorization.” At trial, the prosecution’s theory was that the employee’s resignation automatically ended her authorization to access the email account, making her subsequent access a crime. The district court denied defense motions for acquittal and a new trial, the latter of which challenged both the jury instructions on authorization and the prosecutor’s remarks about extortion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, in the absence of any evidence the organization took affirmative steps to revoke the employee’s authorization—or any contract linking authorization to employment—the mere act of resignation did not terminate authorization under the CFAA. The court found the jury instruction on authorization erroneous and determined there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and ordered a judgment of acquittal. The court also found that any improper remarks by the prosecutor were harmless given the curative instructions. View "USA v. Eddings" on Justia Law

A man living in Muskogee, Oklahoma, fatally shot his neighbor after developing the belief that the neighbor had harmed his daughter, despite no history of conflict or any evidence supporting this belief. The shooter had been prescribed unusually high doses of Adderall, and a Bureau of Prisons psychologist concluded that he suffered from amphetamine-induced psychosis at the time of the shooting. At trial, the defendant admitted to the killing but raised the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication due to his prescribed medication, asserting he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Both parties presented expert and lay testimony regarding the defendant’s mental state and drug use, including the possibility of methamphetamine use.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over a jury trial. The court instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication but included categorical disqualifiers: the jury was told that the defense could not apply if the defendant had knowledge of Adderall’s possible intoxicating effects, or if he had used illegal drugs while on Adderall. The court also denied the defense’s request for an instruction on involuntary manslaughter based on “imperfect defense of another.” The jury rejected the involuntary intoxication defense and convicted the defendant of first-degree murder and related firearm offenses.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s jury instructions on involuntary intoxication were legally erroneous. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit found it was improper to instruct the jury that any knowledge of possible intoxicating effects, or any illegal drug use while taking Adderall, categorically barred the defense. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the errors were not harmless. The Tenth Circuit also concluded the district court erred by failing to give the requested imperfect defense of another instruction, which may be relevant at retrial. View "United States v. Rainford" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with several serious offenses after allegedly shooting a neighbor during a dispute at their apartment complex. The evidence included eyewitness testimony, gunshot residue on the appellant’s hands, and ammunition found in the appellant’s apartment matching shell casings at the scene. The appellant ultimately entered a no-contest plea to reduced charges, but later sought to withdraw the plea, claiming that his attorney’s actions led him to enter the agreement involuntarily and without full understanding of the case against him.After the appellant attempted to file a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, his defense counsel followed guidance from a prior decision (Reed v. State) by moving to withdraw as counsel and requesting substitute counsel. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware held a hearing, but did not first address the motion to withdraw as counsel. Instead, the court required the appellant to advocate for his own plea withdrawal and ultimately granted the motion to withdraw the plea, finding it had not been entered voluntarily. However, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and required the same attorney to represent the appellant at trial, where he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware held that when defense counsel moves to withdraw after a defendant expresses a desire to withdraw a plea, the trial court must first address and resolve the motion to withdraw as counsel, applying the established “good cause” standard. The failure to do so in this case resulted in the defendant being denied his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage. The Supreme Court reversed the appellant’s convictions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bolden v. State" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted following a jury trial for filing a fraudulent tax return and theft of government funds, after he submitted a tax form claiming a large refund based on a mistaken belief about a government “trust” linked to Social Security. He received and spent the refund, then requested another, which was denied. The IRS investigated, and he later filed a document stating he was deceased. His defense at trial centered on his claim that he misunderstood tax law due to information from an online forum and advice from an IRS agent.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana oversaw the criminal trial, where the petitioner was represented by attorney John Davis. During trial, Davis pursued motions under Brady v. Maryland, seeking exculpatory evidence, but the motions were denied. After conviction, Davis was removed from the Seventh Circuit Bar for misconduct in an unrelated case. The petitioner then moved for a new trial and, later, for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based on Davis’s disciplinary history and alleged trial errors. The district court denied both motions, finding Davis’s performance did not prejudice the petitioner’s defense and that his disciplinary issues in other cases did not establish ineffectiveness in the present case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of collateral relief de novo for legal issues and for clear error regarding factual findings. The court held that there is no per se rule that concurrent or subsequent attorney discipline renders counsel ineffective; instead, a petitioner must show specific deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that counsel’s alleged errors affected the outcome of the trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion. View "Blake v USA" on Justia Law

After a series of shootings in Wilmington, Delaware, Kyair Keys was charged with attempted murder, assault in the first degree, and multiple firearm offenses stemming from incidents between January 14 and January 22, 2022. Surveillance footage and ballistics evidence linked Keys to the shootings, and he was apprehended driving a stolen vehicle. During the investigation, police obtained an Instagram video showing Keys in the stolen car listening to a rap song with lyrics allegedly alluding to violent conduct and referencing his street nickname.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over Keys’s trial. Prior to trial, the State sought to admit the Instagram video, including its audio, as evidence. Keys objected, arguing the song’s lyrics were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Superior Court viewed the issue through Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b), which concerns evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, and ultimately overruled Keys’s objection, allowing the jury to hear both the video and police interpretation of the lyrics. The jury found Keys guilty on most counts, and he was sentenced to 47 years of incarceration, followed by probation.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Keys argued that admitting the audio portion of the video was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced the jury unfairly. The Supreme Court found that while the Superior Court’s decision to admit the audio evidence was questionable and likely should have been excluded due to lack of relevance and prejudicial effect, any error was harmless given the substantial other evidence of guilt. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the convictions. View "Keys v. State" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after police discovered these items during a search of a residence she shared with another individual who was on probation. The search was initiated when a probation officer visited to verify the housemate's residence. The woman answered the door, attempted to refuse entry by shutting the door, but the officer entered regardless and proceeded to search the shared bedroom after both occupants indicated there might be contraband present. The officer found drugs and paraphernalia in the room, and both individuals were charged.Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, denied the woman's motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting her argument that the search was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph because she had expressly objected to the entry. The district court also admitted a police body camera video at trial, which included statements from her housemate that allegedly violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States. The case proceeded to a joint jury trial, resulting in guilty verdicts for both defendants.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the search was lawful because the probationer's waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation allowed officers to enter and search shared areas, even over the objection of a co-occupant. The Court declined to extend the Randolph rule to probation searches, reasoning that co-tenants of probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Regarding the confrontation issue, the Court found that admitting the body camera footage was error under Bruton, but determined the error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

Three individuals were arrested after a fatal shooting in a Delaware apartment complex. Surveillance and witness testimony established that a caravan of vehicles traveled together to the scene, where two men exited, one remaining in front of a building while the other proceeded to the rear. The man at the front, later identified as the defendant, fired shots into the air, while the other shot and killed the victim, who was not the intended target. The defendant was also seen moving toward the back of the building and holding a firearm near the victim. After the shooting, all involved fled together.A grand jury indicted the defendant and two others for first-degree murder and related offenses. One co-defendant pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Following a bench trial in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, the defendant was found guilty on all counts, while another co-defendant was acquitted. The defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish intent to kill the victim, failed to prove accomplice liability, and that he had withdrawn from any complicity before the murder. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that liability attached based on the intent to promote the criminal conduct, regardless of the victim’s identity, and that the defendant did not effectively withdraw from the joint criminal enterprise.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed de novo the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that, under Delaware law, a person may be found guilty of first-degree murder as an accomplice if he intentionally aided the commission of the offense, regardless of whether he was the actual shooter, and that withdrawal from complicity requires affirmative acts to sever involvement, which the defendant had not demonstrated. The conviction and judgment were affirmed. View "Henry v. State" on Justia Law

The case arose from a fatal stabbing that occurred during a confrontation between two women, both of whom had been romantically involved with the same man. In the months preceding the incident, the defendant initiated interactions with the victim and her family, and at a party hosted by the mutual romantic partner, witnesses observed the defendant acting aggressively and making threats while in possession of a large kitchen knife. During an altercation at the party, the victim retrieved a pistol from her car and fired a shot into the air. The defendant then stabbed the victim in the chest with the knife, resulting in her death. The defendant asserted self-defense, claiming the victim was the initial aggressor.The Superior Court of Bibb County conducted a jury trial at which the defendant was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the conviction, new counsel filed a motion for new trial, later amended, which the trial court denied. The defendant subsequently appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction and judgment. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and could have rejected her claim of self-defense. The court found no error in the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict of acquittal, nor did it find that trial counsel’s advice to the defendant not to testify was constitutionally deficient. The court also determined that any alleged error in admitting certain testimony was harmless, and that the challenged expert testimony did not violate statutory disclosure requirements. The judgment was affirmed. View "DIXON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

On February 21, 2023, two employees of Rogers Mechanical, Richard Antoine and Wyman Lott, were involved in a violent incident in Fulton County while driving their company van, which was equipped with cameras. After a traffic altercation, a Dodge Charger driven by McKinley Johnson, with Antonio Spear as passenger, confronted the van. Johnson and Spear exited their vehicle; Johnson assaulted Antoine while Spear, armed with a firearm, threatened both Antoine and Lott. As the confrontation escalated, Spear struck Antoine with the gun and subsequently shot Antoine in the neck, leading to Antoine’s death. Johnson and Spear fled the scene, and no one in the Charger called 911. Evidence included video footage from the van and witness testimony.Following indictment by a Fulton County grand jury, Johnson was tried separately from his co-defendant. At trial in January 2024, a jury found Johnson guilty of malice murder, aggravated assault, battery, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. The Fulton County Superior Court sentenced Johnson to life with possibility of parole and additional concurrent sentences. Johnson’s motion for new trial was denied in June 2025, after which he filed a timely appeal.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered Johnson’s claims regarding sufficiency of the evidence, alleged improper statements by the State during opening and closing arguments, and the trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Johnson, and that the prosecutor’s arguments fell within permissible bounds, as supported by the evidence and witness testimony. The Court also found no abuse of discretion by the trial court regarding curative instructions or the denial of a mistrial. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentence. View "JOHNSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law