Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The essential facts of this case involve an individual who was convicted in Mississippi state court for failing to pay child support, an offense punishable by up to five years in prison but for which he ultimately received only probation. After repaying the owed child support and completing probation, the individual was later indicted under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The predicate offense for the federal charge was the non-payment of child support.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the defendant twice moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him, among other constitutional challenges. The district court denied both motions. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue, leading to this appeal before the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that, under the historical inquiry required by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, there is no historical tradition supporting the permanent disarmament of a person convicted solely of non-payment of child support, particularly where the debt had been repaid and probation completed. The court rejected the government’s analogy between debtors and thieves, noting that founding-era practices treated debtors differently, allowing for temporary disarmament only until the debt was paid. The Fifth Circuit therefore held that the application of § 922(g)(1) to the defendant violated the Second Amendment and reversed the conviction, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Cockerham" on Justia Law

A man living in Muncie, Indiana, was charged with supplying another individual with counterfeit oxycodone pills (M30s) containing fentanyl, which were then sold to a seventeen-year-old who died from a fentanyl and cocaine overdose. The accused regularly sold M30s to the intermediary, who also obtained such pills from other sources. After the fatal incident, police recovered part of an M30 pill from the victim’s nightstand. During the investigation, the intermediary initially told police that the accused was the supplier of the fatal pills but later recanted, identifying another supplier. The State, planning to use the intermediary’s testimony, withdrew its immunity offer when the intermediary changed his account and decided not to call him as a witness, knowing he would invoke his right against self-incrimination.At the bench trial in Delaware Circuit Court, the prosecution introduced, over objection, the intermediary’s prior statement to police implicating the accused, but the defense was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the intermediary. The court found the accused guilty of multiple charges, including a Level 1 felony for aiding in dealing a controlled substance resulting in death. On appeal, the accused challenged the Level 1 felony conviction, arguing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness. The State conceded this violation but argued that the error was harmless. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the State and affirmed the conviction.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reviewed whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the admission of the statement was not harmless, as it was the only direct, non-cumulative, and uncorroborated evidence linking the accused to the fatal pills, and the defense was denied cross-examination. The court vacated the Level 1 felony conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge. View "Taylor v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement began investigating the defendant after a wiretap of an associate’s phone implicated him in drug trafficking outside Chicago. The investigation revealed that the defendant, a convicted felon, was likely involved in significant drug transactions and was concerned about being targeted for a robbery. He was overheard discussing that he possessed a firearm for protection. Surveillance observed him using countersurveillance driving maneuvers, prompting agents to initiate a stop. During the stop, the defendant failed to comply with commands, resisted a frisk, and was ultimately found to have a handgun in his pocket.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, considered and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop and that their use of force did not convert the encounter into an arrest without probable cause. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury found the defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court also denied the defendant’s posttrial motions for acquittal and a new trial. At sentencing, the court declined to enhance the sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), concluding that the defendant’s prior Illinois conviction for voluntary manslaughter was not a qualifying predicate offense.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion and their conduct was justified under the circumstances. The court also found the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the verdict and that the district judge’s evidentiary rulings did not merit a new trial. However, the Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the defendant’s 1982 Illinois voluntary manslaughter conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA, and remanded for resentencing. View "USA v Edwards" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with multiple crimes related to the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography involving her fourteen-year-old sister. Law enforcement initially investigated the defendant’s husband, but their attention turned to the defendant after she admitted to possibly sending inappropriate photos of her sister to her husband. Subsequent forensic analysis uncovered additional incriminating evidence. Both the sister and husband testified regarding the abuse. The defendant’s primary defense was that she acted under duress due to severe abuse by her husband.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the defendant sought to introduce statements she made to a psychologist, Dr. Reynolds, as part of her duress defense. Dr. Reynolds, who had not practiced clinical work in a decade and was retained specifically to evaluate the defendant in anticipation of litigation, diagnosed her with a dissociative disorder. The government moved to exclude as hearsay those statements made by the defendant to Dr. Reynolds concerning her husband's alleged abuse, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4). The district court agreed, finding the statements were not made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, but rather to prepare for trial. The court alternatively excluded the statements under Rule 403 due to prejudicial effect. After this ruling, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving her right to appeal the evidentiary ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for clear error. The Eleventh Circuit held that statements made to a medical expert retained for litigation, not for genuine medical diagnosis or treatment, do not qualify for the hearsay exception under Rule 803(4). The court found no error in the district court’s exclusion of the statements and affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "USA v. Keegan" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of misdemeanor embezzlement in November 2016 and placed on three years’ probation. Eleven months into probation, she was accused of committing new fraud, and by December 2017, the probation department reported a violation to the trial court. Thirteen months after her probation began, the court summarily revoked her probation and set a hearing on the violation. That hearing was continued several times, sometimes at her request, and ultimately was never held. Meanwhile, in 2021, a new law—Assembly Bill 1950—shortened most misdemeanor probation terms to one year and applied retroactively.After the new law took effect, the woman moved to terminate her probation, arguing her term should be considered expired by operation of law under the revised statute. The People opposed, citing prior case law and statutory provisions that allow courts to retain jurisdiction over violations that occurred during the original term. The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied her motion, and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court denied her petition for a writ of mandate without explanation. She then sought relief in the California Court of Appeal, which initially denied her petition as well.Following reconsideration ordered by the Supreme Court of California in light of its decision in People v. Faial, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, concluded that the new law applied retroactively and that the woman’s probation expired by operation of law one year after it began. Because the trial court did not revoke probation within that new, shorter period, it no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged violation. The Court of Appeal granted her petition, ordering termination of her probation and directing the lower courts to issue the necessary orders. View "Kuhnel v. Appellate Division" on Justia Law

A man was involved in an altercation in a McDonald’s parking lot, during which he struck and shot another individual. Surveillance footage captured the incident, and the state charged him with two counts of felonious assault, each carrying firearm specifications. Prior to trial, his attorney requested a jury instruction on self-defense. The trial judge, after viewing the video, indicated skepticism about granting the instruction, telling the defendant that he likely would not qualify for a self-defense instruction because the evidence suggested he may have initiated the altercation. The defendant expressed concern that without the instruction, a fair trial would not be possible, but the judge repeatedly allowed him opportunities to consult with counsel and emphasized that the decision to plead guilty was his alone.Subsequently, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of aggravated assault with a firearm specification, in exchange for dismissal of the second count and a recommended aggregate sentence of four years. During the plea colloquy, the defendant again voiced his desire for the self-defense instruction and his sense of being “put in a box,” but ultimately confirmed to the court that his plea was voluntary.The First District Court of Appeals reviewed the case after the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s misstatements regarding Ohio’s self-defense statute and its premature indication it would not give the self-defense instruction rendered his plea involuntary and unknowing. The appellate court held that these errors did not invalidate an otherwise valid plea.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, holding that when a trial court complies with Ohio Criminal Rule 11 requirements, even erroneous legal statements or pretrial rulings on ancillary matters do not render a guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary. The court found no violation of Rule 11 and thus upheld the conviction. View "State v. Gowdy" on Justia Law

A man was originally convicted of felony burglary for breaking into a bar in Montana and received a twenty-year prison sentence with five years suspended. After serving time and being released, he began the suspended portion of his sentence. The State later filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentence based on several alleged probation violations, including failing to register as a sex offender. While represented by counsel, he admitted to the failure-to-register allegation, and the court set a dispositional hearing to determine the consequences.The Montana Ninth Judicial District Court presided over the revocation proceeding. At the dispositional hearing, the man appeared without counsel after his attempts to retain private counsel failed and after his appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw. He requested reappointment of a public defender but none was assigned before the hearing. The court conducted no inquiry into whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and proceeded with resentencing him to five years in prison. The man appealed, arguing he was denied his right to counsel at a critical stage and that he did not waive that right.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the district court erred by conducting the dispositional hearing and resentencing without counsel and without a valid waiver of the right to counsel. The Court found this to be a structural error requiring automatic reversal, noting the man’s consistent efforts to obtain representation and the absence of any meaningful waiver inquiry. The Court vacated the dispositional order and remanded for a new hearing at which the man must be represented or must validly waive representation. The Court declined to resolve his request to withdraw his earlier admission, leaving it for further proceedings if appropriate. View "State v. Lambert" on Justia Law

A man was charged with felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs after being found with methamphetamine and paraphernalia following a single-vehicle crash in Sanders County, Montana. During his hospital treatment after the crash, law enforcement recovered drugs and a pipe from his clothing, and further investigation at the scene yielded additional drugs, firearms, and related items. He was prosecuted for possession of dangerous drugs, while several other related charges were dismissed prior to trial.At his jury trial in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, the defendant participated in the morning proceedings but failed to return after the lunch break. The court, over his attorney’s objection, continued the trial in his absence under Montana law, which allows the trial to proceed if a felony defendant is voluntarily absent and the crime is not punishable by death. The jury found him guilty while he was absent. He was later arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by proceeding in his absence and that his attorney was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence found in his clothing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the district court did not err in resuming the trial in the defendant’s absence, concluding that he voluntarily absented himself and thereby waived his right to be present. The Court further held that, when voluntary absence is established, there is no need for the trial court to exercise additional due diligence to secure a defendant’s presence for the verdict. The Court also determined that the record was insufficient to review his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "State v. McKnight" on Justia Law

A man was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon after Boston police discovered a loaded pistol under the front passenger seat of a car in which he was seated. The discovery occurred shortly after a drive-by shooting in the area, though later evidence showed the car was not involved in the shooting. Video evidence and police testimony established that the man exclusively occupied the front passenger seat from the time the car arrived at a market until the stop, wore a latex glove on his right hand, and repeatedly bent toward the floor mat area where the pistol was found. No fingerprints were found on the firearm, magazine, or ammunition.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The motions argued the evidence was insufficient to prove possession and that the government’s references to the nearby shooting were prejudicial. The court found that, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the circumstantial evidence—including the glove, the exclusive control over the seat, and his actions toward the floor—was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict of constructive possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The appellate court affirmed that the district court correctly denied both the judgment of acquittal and the new trial motion, finding no miscarriage of justice or erroneous result. The court also affirmed the revocation of the defendant’s supervised release, as the evidence met the preponderance standard. The convictions and the revocation of supervised release were affirmed. View "United States v. Abercrombie" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant was charged with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and a related enhancement. After being arraigned in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the defendant was remanded into custody with bail set. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for nine days after arraignment, in line with the ten-court-day deadline under California Penal Code section 859b for in-custody defendants. Due to a cyberattack, all Los Angeles County courthouses were closed on the originally scheduled hearing date, and the preliminary hearing was continued to the tenth court day. On that day, the defendant was not brought to court, and the court continued the hearing further, ordering the defendant released on his own recognizance. However, the defendant was not actually released until almost three days after the order.The trial court denied defense motions to dismiss the complaint under section 859b, reasoning that dismissal was unnecessary because the defendant had been ordered released on the tenth court day. The defendant then sought a writ of mandate from the superior court, which was denied on similar grounds. The defendant petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition, which was denied by a divided panel. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to reconsider.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, held that section 859b requires dismissal of the criminal complaint when a defendant remains in custody for more than ten court days solely on that complaint and the preliminary hearing is continued beyond the statutory period, unless the defendant waives the deadline or good cause is found. The court concluded that the relevant measure is the defendant’s actual time in custody, not the date of a release order. Because the defendant was not released until after the ten-court-day period and neither waiver nor good cause was established, dismissal was mandatory. The court granted the petition for writ of prohibition and directed dismissal of the complaint. View "Benavides v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law