Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Law enforcement used a specialized software tool, Torrential Downpour, to download files containing child pornography from a specific IP address associated with the defendant. Torrential Downpour is designed to force a single-source download from a user on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network, allowing officers to link specific files to a particular IP address. After obtaining these files, police secured a warrant and seized the defendant’s computer and other devices, which contained additional child pornography. The defendant argued that he did not knowingly share files and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files downloaded by law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida held an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, considering expert testimony about BitTorrent’s functionality. The court found the government’s expert more credible and determined that the defendant had made the files available to the public. The court concluded that the use of Torrential Downpour did not access any information not already publicly shared and denied the motion to suppress. The court also denied a motion in limine to prevent the government from showing child pornography images to the jury, finding that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially since the defendant did not object to specific images.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the use of Torrential Downpour to download files from a peer-to-peer network did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files he made publicly available. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to show a representative sample of images to the jury without first reviewing specific images, given the lack of specific objections. View "USA v. Ewing" on Justia Law

Island Industries, Inc. filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Sigma Corporation, alleging that Sigma made false statements on customs forms to avoid paying antidumping duties on welded outlets imported from China. Island claimed that Sigma falsely declared that the products were not subject to antidumping duties and misrepresented the products as steel couplings instead of welded outlets. The jury found in favor of Island, concluding that Sigma was liable under the FCA.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over the case. Sigma requested a scope ruling from the Department of Commerce, which determined that Sigma’s welded outlets fell within the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed this ruling. Sigma’s appeal was stayed pending the Federal Circuit’s decision, which ultimately affirmed the scope ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the case and that the action did not need to be initiated in the Court of International Trade. The court also held that 19 U.S.C. § 1592, which provides a mechanism for the United States to recover fraudulently avoided customs duties, does not displace the FCA. The court rejected Sigma’s argument that it lacked an “obligation to pay” antidumping duties under the FCA and concluded that Island’s theory that Sigma violated the FCA by knowingly falsely declaring that no antidumping duties were owed was legally valid and supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict under either of Island’s theories of liability. View "ISLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. V. SIGMA CORPORATION" on Justia Law

A father was accused of sexually abusing and assaulting his 11-year-old daughter over the course of a single day. The daughter testified to three separate incidents: in the family’s toy room, the father touched her chest through her clothes and showed her a pornographic video; in the school room, he told her they would have vaginal sex that night, described the pain she would experience, touched her vagina through her clothes, and made her touch his exposed penis; later, while driving her to a store, he touched her again, showed more pornographic videos, and, after stopping on a dirt road, moved her onto his lap, sucked on her chest, touched her vagina, kissed her, and asked if she was sure about having sex.A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found the father guilty of abusive sexual contact with a minor under 12 and assault with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse. After the verdict, the district court entered a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient because the father had said the sex would occur later that night, not immediately. The government moved for reconsideration, and the district court reinstated the conviction, concluding that a reasonable jury could have found both assault and the required intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed three issues: whether the district court plainly erred by not instructing the jury to agree on a specific incident of sexual contact, whether the district court could reinstate the assault conviction after acquittal, and whether sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The court held that the omission of a specific unanimity instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, that the district court could correct its mistaken acquittal without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Roark" on Justia Law

Reginald Robinson, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, preserving his right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Robinson appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on an invalid Miranda waiver and lack of reasonable suspicion, and his motion to dismiss the indictment challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3).The district court denied Robinson’s motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Siferd did not circumvent Miranda and that Robinson’s waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary. The court also found that Officer Siferd had reasonable suspicion to detain Robinson based on the Walmart employee’s report and the odor of marijuana. The district court denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss the indictment, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent that upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court found no evidence that Officer Siferd engaged in an orchestrated effort to circumvent Miranda and concluded that Robinson’s waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary. The court also held that Officer Siferd had reasonable suspicion to detain Robinson based on the shoplifting report and the odor of marijuana. Additionally, the court upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3), noting that Robinson’s challenges were foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law