Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

David Venkus sought to collect a $13,776,518 criminal restitution judgment against Thomas Lindstrom, his former employee, who had caused the collapse of Venkus’s trading firm through fraudulent activities. Lindstrom later worked for Ryan Building Group, Inc. (RBG), where he earned salary and accumulated stock options but also incurred significant debt to RBG. After Lindstrom was terminated by RBG for embezzlement, RBG paid him $73,090, labeling it a severance payment. This sum was allegedly calculated based on the value of Lindstrom’s expired stock options, offset by his debt to RBG. Venkus, having previously served RBG with a citation to discover assets pursuant to Illinois law, claimed the payment and the handling of the options violated the citation’s asset-transfer prohibitions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Venkus’s motion, finding that because Lindstrom’s options had expired and thus had no value, RBG’s severance payment was hypothetical and not a violation of the citation. The district court also held that the severance was subject to Illinois’s 15% wage garnishment cap and that RBG was not liable for attorney’s fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that material questions of fact existed regarding the true nature of the severance payment and whether RBG’s actions “frustrated” Venkus’s rights under the citation. The court held that the district court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve these questions. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the lower court hold an evidentiary hearing and, if necessary, address whether attorney’s fees should be awarded if a citation violation is found. View "USA v Lindstrom" on Justia Law

The case concerns a shooting incident that occurred late at night in Douglas, Wyoming, when the defendant called 911 to report he had shot his cousin, believing the cousin was breaking into his home. Investigation revealed that the cousin was an invited guest, and the defendant gave inconsistent accounts of the events leading up to the shooting, including claims of memory loss and possible intoxication. Both the defendant and the victim had consumed alcohol and the defendant had used THC. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and pursued defenses including not guilty by reason of mental illness and self-defense. Psychiatric evaluations offered differing opinions on his mental state, one attributing his actions to a PTSD flashback and the other finding his intoxication contributed to his conduct.In the District Court of Converse County, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges, asserting immunity under a Wyoming self-defense statute. The district court excluded testimony from one of the psychiatric experts, finding it irrelevant under the governing statutes, and further determined that the defendant failed to present competent evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for self-defense immunity. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced accordingly.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that the lower court properly excluded the psychiatric testimony as irrelevant to the self-defense immunity issue. The Supreme Court found the defendant failed to present admissible, competent evidence to support a prima facie self-defense claim. It declined to review the jury instruction challenge due to invited error, as the defendant proposed the instruction in question. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for second-degree murder and affirmed the judgment. View "Helms v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including sexual assault and burglary, after a jury trial. At sentencing, the State sought to have him sentenced as a persistent offender under New Jersey’s persistent offender statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), and presented two certified judgments of prior convictions in support. The trial court, without objection from the defense, found the defendant eligible for an extended-term sentence based on these convictions and imposed a 42-year prison term.After the conviction, the defendant appealed, asserting trial errors. During the appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, which held that, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence—apart from the existence of a prior conviction—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Both parties agreed that, in light of Erlinger, the enhanced sentence was unconstitutional because a judge, not a jury, made the persistent offender findings. The parties disputed whether this error could be considered harmless. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held the error could not be harmless and vacated the sentence, also construing the statute to require jury factfinding in compliance with Erlinger.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that errors of this kind—where a judge, not a jury, makes the findings necessary to impose an enhanced sentence—are subject to harmless error review. In this case, the Court found the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the facts supporting the persistent offender status were undisputed and only one outcome was possible. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the sentence. However, the Court also concluded that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) is inconsistent with Erlinger and urged the Legislature to amend the statute accordingly. View "State v. Carlton" on Justia Law

A pregnant woman working alone at a gasoline station was killed by ligature strangulation during her shift, resulting in her death and that of her viable, unborn child. The defendant, a man known to frequent the area and drive a distinctive black van, was observed at the station around the time of the killings and was later seen with a large amount of cash. He made incriminating statements to police and fellow detainees, and his DNA matched the major profile found on the ligature used in the crime, as well as DNA recovered from the victim’s fingernails.After his conviction in the Superior Court for two counts of first-degree murder and armed robbery, the defendant appealed and filed several motions for a new trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court previously affirmed his convictions and denied his first motion for a new trial, vacating only the armed robbery conviction as duplicative. While his direct appeal was pending, the defendant filed a second motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, asserting new grounds: the Commonwealth's failure to disclose an exculpatory segment of an audio recording, alleged anomalies in another police interview recording, and ineffective assistance of counsel for not interviewing or calling potential alibi witnesses.On appeal from the denial of his second motion for a new trial, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the undisclosed audio segment was not prejudicial since its content was substantially similar to evidence already disclosed, and the overwhelming evidence against the defendant precluded a finding of prejudice. The Court also concluded that the alleged recording anomalies were not newly discovered evidence and would not have affected the verdicts. Finally, it found no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice regarding counsel’s performance. The order denying the second motion for a new trial was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Bateman" on Justia Law

A witness was subpoenaed to testify in a federal criminal trial in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. After answering a few questions, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, refusing to answer further questions from the government. The government then sought and obtained an order from the District Court granting her statutory immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003, which precluded the use of her compelled testimony or information derived from it against her in any criminal case, except for prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or failing to comply with the order. Despite this grant of immunity and a direct order from the court, the witness continued to refuse to testify.Following her refusal, the District Court found her in criminal contempt and issued an order accordingly. Her attorney argued that the statutory immunity provided was not as broad as her Fifth Amendment privilege, specifically asserting that the immunity did not protect her from potential prosecution for perjury based on her compelled testimony. The District Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the immunity was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege as it protected against self-incrimination for prior acts but did not extend to potential perjury in the immunized testimony itself.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s criminal contempt order for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. The First Circuit held that the statutory immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 was indeed coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, except for future perjury or false statements given under immunity. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order of criminal contempt. View "United States v. McBreairty" on Justia Law

Three individuals carried out an armed robbery targeting customers at a Chicago convenience store, J&J Food and Grocery. The incident involved robbing a person just outside the store’s vestibule and several customers inside, all at gunpoint. The store, which operates around the clock but limits access to a vestibule in the evenings, temporarily shut down after the robbery for police investigation, resulting in lost business for approximately thirty to sixty minutes. The robbers did not attempt to steal from the store itself or make demands of its employees.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over the trial and ultimately convicted the defendants of Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A). The defendants moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that their actions did not affect interstate commerce as required by the Hobbs Act, since they robbed customers rather than the store. The district court denied this motion, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the convictions de novo and affirmed. The court held that the temporary closure of J&J due to the robbery constituted at least a “realistic probability” of affecting interstate commerce, satisfying the Hobbs Act’s jurisdictional requirement. The court also rejected the defendants’ claim that the jury could have convicted them solely based on robbing the customer outside the store, finding that the jury was not presented with separate legal theories for inside and outside robberies. As the Hobbs Act convictions were upheld, the related firearm convictions were affirmed as well. View "United States v. Demus" on Justia Law

Chang Goo Yoon, a licensed physical therapist operating clinics in Massachusetts, engaged in a scheme over four years to submit more than one million dollars in fraudulent claims to private health insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, for services he did not actually provide. He fabricated treatment notes, sometimes under another provider's name, and submitted false personal injury claims to his own car insurer, MAPFRE. Yoon manipulated patient addresses to ensure reimbursement checks were sent directly to him, avoiding detection by patients. His fraudulent conduct was eventually uncovered, and a jury convicted him on two counts of health care fraud, with Count One involving Blue Cross and Aetna, and Count Two concerning MAPFRE.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the trial. Before trial, Yoon moved to exclude evidence related to insurance company investigations into his billing, including a 2015 Blue Cross investigation and a 2007 Colorado licensing investigation. The district court limited the evidence to Yoon’s knowledge of the investigations, excluding their outcomes. The court also redacted key documents and provided limiting instructions to the jury. At trial, witnesses testified about insurance procedures and Yoon’s billing practices. Yoon challenged the admissibility of this evidence, as well as testimony from insurance investigators, arguing it was unduly prejudicial and improperly admitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed Yoon’s appeal. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, holding that evidence of Yoon’s knowledge of prior investigations was highly probative of his specific intent and not unduly prejudicial given the safeguards imposed. The court also affirmed the application of two sentencing enhancements: one for intended loss based on the total amount billed, and another for abuse of a position of trust, finding both were supported by the record and correctly applied. Yoon’s conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Yoon" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with several drug-related offenses in two separate incidents, each involving multiple codefendants. The same attorney, David A. Cooper, entered his appearance to represent the defendant in both matters. During bail hearings in the Rhode Island Superior Court, the trial justice expressed concern about a potential conflict of interest because Attorney Cooper had previously represented one of the codefendants in a related matter. The trial justice questioned both the attorney and the defendant about this issue, and the defendant indicated that she understood the situation and wanted to continue with her chosen counsel, expressing her willingness to waive any potential conflict.Despite the defendant’s statements, the Superior Court trial justice removed Attorney Cooper as counsel, citing a “strong potential for conflict,” even though there was no actual conflict at the time. The court’s order was based on the attorney’s prior representation of a codefendant and the possibility that interests might diverge in the future, and a written waiver from the codefendant was obtained, while the defendant’s waiver was made orally in open court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the matter on writs of certiorari. The Supreme Court concluded that, although trial courts have discretion to remove counsel when there is an actual or serious potential conflict of interest, such a removal must be supported by a substantial showing that the likelihood and dimensions of the feared conflict are significant. The Supreme Court held that, in this case, the record did not support a sufficient showing of a substantial potential conflict to justify overriding the defendant’s chosen counsel at that time. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the Superior Court’s orders removing Attorney Cooper as counsel and remanded the case. View "Viera v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with possessing two firearms as a convicted felon and with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, following a shooting and possible abduction at a motel in Hialeah, Florida. Surveillance footage and subsequent police investigation linked the defendant to the incident via a work van registered to his business, J&M Electric, and to a residential property where evidence was found. The defendant, his girlfriend, and his stepfather Soriano were associated with the property. After a violent altercation, Soriano temporarily relocated but retained access and possessions at the residence. Police obtained Soriano’s consent to search the property, and later, a search warrant; they found firearms, ammunition, and a large quantity of methamphetamine, along with items indicating drug trafficking.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida conducted a jury trial, during which the government presented evidence, including surveillance videos, forensic analyses, and a YouTube video filmed at the defendant’s residence. The jury convicted the defendant on two counts: felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, but acquitted him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court dismissed one firearm count to avoid double jeopardy and sentenced the defendant to concurrent 96-month terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, finding Soriano had actual authority to consent to the search. The appellate court also upheld evidentiary rulings, denial of the Rule 29 motion for acquittal, rejection of the prosecutorial misconduct claim, and the application of the sentencing guidelines. The court held there was no cumulative error and affirmed both convictions and the sentence. View "United States v. Estadella" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a Mexican citizen residing in the United States, traveled to Hawaii in June 2023, where he rented a studio apartment. A suspicious package addressed to a name similar to his arrived at the property owner’s residence. After the owner opened the package and suspected it contained drugs, she turned it over to law enforcement. The package was later confirmed to contain nearly 5 kilograms of a methamphetamine mixture. The defendant was arrested and interviewed, during which he admitted to being recruited to pick up and deliver a package and to wire money linked to drug trafficking, though he claimed not to know the specific type or quantity of drugs involved.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii presided over the trial. A jury convicted the defendant on charges of conspiracy to possess and attempted possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to concurrent ten-year prison terms. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were improper regarding his knowledge of the drug’s type and quantity, and that religious images and expert testimony admitted at trial were prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under United States v. Hunt, the government must prove the defendant’s specific intent to possess the particular drug type and quantity to trigger the heightened penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The district court’s jury instruction relieving the government of this burden was not harmless error. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence for attempted possession but not the conviction itself, remanding for resentencing. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that any error in admitting expert testimony about “narco saints” was harmless. The judgment was thus affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "USA V. ALAVEZ" on Justia Law