Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involved a defendant charged with several offenses, including possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance with a firearm, and related drug offenses, following a 2023 arrest in Orange County. The defendant, who was on probation in three other counties, filed a motion for pretrial mental health diversion under California Penal Code section 1001.36, submitting evidence of multiple diagnosed mental disorders that were significant factors in the commission of the offenses. Expert reports and treatment records supported the defendant’s eligibility and suitability for diversion, noting his willingness to participate in treatment and the absence of any indication that he posed an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated in the community.The Superior Court of Orange County held a hearing and found that the defendant met all statutory eligibility and suitability criteria for mental health diversion. Nevertheless, the court denied the motion, exercising what it described as “residual discretion,” citing concerns about public safety, the defendant’s criminal history, substance use, a recent DUI arrest, and an alleged lack of effective court monitoring during diversion. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to most charges and was sentenced to probation and jail time, but appealed the denial of diversion.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that while trial courts retain discretion to deny mental health diversion even when statutory criteria are met, that discretion must be exercised consistent with the statute’s principles and purposes—favoring broad application of diversion for eligible defendants. The appellate court found the lower court’s denial was based on findings unsupported by substantial evidence, speculative reasoning, and a misunderstanding of the statute’s monitoring provisions. The judgment was reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to grant diversion absent changed circumstances. View "P. v. Cabalar" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was involved in a violent incident that began as a fistfight between two groups at an apartment complex in Oklahoma and escalated into a gunfight. The defendant, who was present with an AK-47, fired more than twenty rounds into a crowd after shots were fired by others, resulting in the death of a bystander, Larintino Scales. Evidence at trial included various eyewitness accounts, forensic analysis, and expert testimony regarding bullet trajectories. The defendant was charged with several offenses, including voluntary manslaughter and being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The jury convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter and felon in possession, but acquitted him of other charges. The district court denied a pretrial motion alleging bad-faith destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence, allowed expert testimony on bullet trajectories, and overruled objections to the prosecutor’s closing argument regarding self-defense. The court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines, imposing the statutory maximum sentence of fifteen years.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the defendant’s challenges to his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the late-discovered bullet fragment lacked potentially exculpatory value. Any error in the admission of the government’s expert testimony was found to be harmless, and the expert was deemed qualified. The prosecutor’s closing statements were not found to misstate the law of self-defense. Finally, the appellate court concluded the sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court adequately considered relevant sentencing factors and the seriousness of the offense. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Holt" on Justia Law

A Michigan State Trooper conducted a traffic stop after observing a vehicle with expired registration. The passenger, Adam Santos, was identified as a convicted felon, currently on probation, and flagged in police databases as possibly armed and dangerous. During the stop, the trooper noticed Santos acting nervously and avoiding searching a cross-body bag when asked for identification. After obtaining the driver’s consent to search the vehicle, the trooper removed both occupants from the car for safety. While frisking Santos, the trooper felt a weight in the bag consistent with a firearm. A struggle ensued when the trooper attempted to open the bag, and a gun was recovered. Santos was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Santos’s motion to suppress the gun, finding that the officer’s actions were justified by concerns for safety and that the driver voluntarily consented to the vehicle search. The court also found the frisk of Santos and the subsequent search of the bag permissible, given the reasonable suspicion and probable cause developed during the stop.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the trooper did not violate Santos’s Fourth Amendment rights. The stop was lawfully initiated, and the questions and actions taken by the officer, including the removal of both occupants and the frisk of Santos, were justified by safety concerns based on specific, articulable facts. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, holding that neither the duration nor the scope of the stop nor the search of Santos’s bag was unconstitutional. View "United States v. Santos" on Justia Law

A dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, the defendant traveled from the U.S. to Pakistan in 2009, along with four others, with the intent to join jihad in Afghanistan. Upon arrival, the group attempted to make contact with terrorist organizations and made efforts to cross into Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities arrested them in Sargodha, Pakistan, and subsequently tried and convicted them on terrorism-related offenses. The defendant served approximately ten years in a Pakistani prison. After completing his sentence, he was extradited to the United States, where he faced federal charges arising from the same underlying conduct.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arraigned the defendant and, after he waived his Speedy Trial Act rights, considered his motion to dismiss the indictment on Sixth Amendment speedy trial grounds. The motion argued that the government’s delay in seeking his extradition and prosecution in the U.S. violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the motion, finding that, although the length of the delay was significant, the government made reasonably diligent and good-faith efforts to secure his return, and the remaining factors weighed against finding a violation. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the speedy trial ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision, applying the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo. The appellate court agreed that only the length of the delay favored the defendant, but reasoned that the government’s efforts, the defendant’s own conduct in resisting extradition, and the absence of actual prejudice outweighed that factor. The court held there was no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation and affirmed the conviction. View "US v. Chaudhry" on Justia Law

Law enforcement received anonymous tips in 2021 and 2022 alleging that a Wilmington resident was selling drugs and possessing firearms at his home, which also operated as an unlicensed barbershop. The tips included specific details about the individual’s activities and identifying information. After receiving the July 2022 tip, police corroborated aspects of the information through surveillance, database checks, and two traffic stops involving individuals seen leaving the residence—one was found with marijuana allegedly purchased from the suspect and another fled from police after acting suspiciously. Based on this investigation, police obtained and executed a search warrant, recovering drugs, cash, and a firearm. The individual, a previously convicted felon, was indicted on drug and firearm charges, including possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause through the combination of the July 2022 tip and corroborating police investigation. At trial, a police officer referred to information from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) identifying the recovered firearm as stolen. The defense did not object to this testimony. The defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including firearm and drug charges, and sentenced to seventeen years of incarceration.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the defendant raised claims of hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations due to the NCIC testimony, challenged the denial of his suppression motion, and argued that the statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court applied plain error review to most issues because they were not raised below, and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that there was no plain error in admitting the NCIC evidence, that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and that the firearm prohibition statute was not plainly unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to the defendant. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Johns v. State" on Justia Law

Jose Antonio Duque-Ramirez, born in Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully as a child and lived in Oklahoma City for over two decades. He married a U.S. citizen, has U.S.-citizen children, and attempted but failed to adjust his immigration status through various legal avenues. In October 2023, he was stopped by law enforcement while driving with security gear and firearms in his vehicle. He was found to be unlawfully present in the U.S. and subsequently indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully in the country.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma first rejected his facial challenge to the statute, assuming without deciding that he was among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. After pleading guilty, withdrawing his plea, and raising a new as-applied Second Amendment challenge (relying on recent Supreme Court precedent, including United States v. Rahimi), the district court again denied his motion to dismiss, reasoning that historical laws supported disarming those who had not demonstrated allegiance to the sovereign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The Tenth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Duque-Ramirez was among those protected by the Second Amendment. Applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and Rahimi, the court held that § 922(g)(5)(A) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, specifically citing founding-era laws that disarmed persons who had not demonstrated allegiance. The court concluded that an individualized determination of dangerousness was not required and affirmed the conviction, rejecting Duque-Ramirez’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge. View "United States v. Duque-Ramirez" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers with the Kansas Highway Patrol observed a black Jeep Grand Cherokee traveling eastbound on I-70 with a temporary registration tag that appeared to be unsecured and “flapping or blowing up,” rather than lying flat against the vehicle. The officers believed this constituted a violation of Kansas law regarding license plate attachment. Upon stopping the vehicle, they noted the driver, Miguel Munoz, appeared abnormally nervous and immediately volunteered that he and his wife were traveling to a funeral in Kansas, providing vague details. During the stop, an officer also noticed an image of Jesus Malverde, which the officers associated with drug trafficking, hanging inside the Jeep. After further questioning, Munoz consented to a search, leading to the discovery of fentanyl tablets and a firearm.Munoz was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop, arguing that the stop was not justified at its inception and was unreasonably extended. The district court held a suppression hearing, found the officers’ testimony credible, and denied the motion. The court concluded the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a violation of Kansas Statutes Annotated § 8-133(c) (requiring license plates to be securely fastened) and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly extend the stop based on Munoz’s conduct and the items observed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a violation of § 8-133(c), as interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, and that the extension of the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Munoz’s motion to suppress and his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident in Oklahoma with his girlfriend as a passenger. After socializing with friends and drinking alcohol, and possibly vaping marijuana, he drove his motorcycle at or below the speed limit but lost control on a dark, shoulderless road, resulting in a crash that caused his girlfriend’s death. At the scene, law enforcement observed signs of possible intoxication, such as the odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes, and administered sobriety tests. The defendant’s blood sample, taken shortly after the accident, revealed a blood alcohol level below the legal limit and the presence of other substances, but the forensic toxicologist could not definitively state whether he was impaired at the time.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted the defendant for involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country, predicated on violating the Oklahoma misdemeanor DUI statute for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and other intoxicants. At trial, the jury was instructed using the Oklahoma statutory language but, during deliberations, asked the court to clarify whether “under the influence” required mere presence of substances or actual impairment rendering the defendant incapable of safe driving. The district court declined to clarify, instructing the jury to rely on the given instructions. Shortly after, the jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a sentence of forty-one months in prison.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clarifying supplemental instruction in response to the jury’s explicit legal uncertainty. The appellate court found this error was not harmless because it likely affected the verdict, given the jury’s demonstrated confusion about the correct legal standard. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kirby" on Justia Law

A man was charged with several federal offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, transporting a minor with intent to engage in prostitution, and possession of child pornography. The charges arose after he met a 16-year-old runaway through Craigslist, transported her across state lines, and engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Law enforcement discovered him with the minor, searched his residence, and found child sexual abuse material and multiple firearms. The defendant admitted to knowing the minor’s age and her mental health issues.He ultimately pled guilty to the firearm charge and one transportation count, with the remaining charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. At sentencing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, he received 292 months for transportation of a minor and 180 months for the firearm offense, to run concurrently. Thirteen days later, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the transportation count, arguing that he only learned at sentencing that the minor was missing and that this constituted exculpatory evidence the prosecution should have disclosed. The district court denied his motion, stating it lacked authority to consider post-sentencing withdrawal of a guilty plea except by direct appeal or collateral attack, and found that the minor’s unavailability was not exculpatory since public records of her status were available before the plea.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial under the abuse of discretion standard and affirmed. The appellate court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) barred post-sentencing withdrawal of a guilty plea except by direct appeal or collateral attack, and that no Brady violation occurred because the information about the minor’s status was publicly available. The court also declined to review the firearm sentence under the concurrent sentence doctrine, as any ruling would not affect the defendant’s time to be served. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Adkins" on Justia Law

A defendant was indicted on multiple federal charges, including sex trafficking by force, transporting a victim across state lines with the intent of prostitution, and coercing or enticing a victim to travel interstate for prostitution-related activities. During jury selection, a prospective juror with experience in local law enforcement expressed doubts about her ability to remain impartial, suggesting that cases typically proceed only when there is sufficient evidence. Her comments were made in the presence of other prospective jurors.After this exchange, the defendant moved to strike the entire venire, arguing that the comments had irreparably tainted the panel. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the motion but excused the individual juror for cause. The court reasoned that her experience was limited to a police department unrelated to the case and emphasized that it had already instructed the panel multiple times that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendant was ultimately convicted on all counts, and his motion for a new trial—reiterating his concerns about jury prejudice—was denied by the district court, which found no prejudice resulted from the juror’s comments.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to question or strike the rest of the venire and in providing the jury with a redacted copy of the indictment during deliberations. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court acted within its discretion in both respects, noting the low probability of prejudice, the adequacy of curative instructions, and the routine nature of providing indictments with proper safeguards. The court also rejected the argument of cumulative error and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Thomas" on Justia Law