Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On November 18, 2020, Juanita McFadden was shot and killed in the entrance hall of an apartment shared by Carl Crawford and his roommate, Jarvon Whitehead, in Cobb County, Georgia. The evidence at trial showed that McFadden and Crawford had a tumultuous relationship, with frequent arguments and occasional physical altercations. On the night of the incident, McFadden came to the apartment to collect her belongings, and after a heated exchange, Crawford shot her multiple times. Crawford claimed self-defense, asserting that he suffered from battered person syndrome due to his relationship with McFadden. The investigation revealed that McFadden was unarmed at the time of the shooting, and Crawford admitted to shooting her after she allegedly struck him.A Cobb County grand jury indicted Crawford on several charges, including malice murder and felony murder. After a jury trial in March 2022, Crawford was found guilty on all counts except theft by taking. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder and received a consecutive five-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Crawford filed a motion for a new trial, which was amended and heard in 2023, but the Cobb County Superior Court denied the motion. Crawford then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Crawford’s claims, including alleged errors in the admission of character evidence, hearsay testimony, lay opinion testimony, and cumulative error. The Court held that Crawford failed to demonstrate plain error or prejudice affecting the outcome of his trial. The Court found that any errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless given the strong evidence of guilt and that the cumulative effect of any errors did not deprive Crawford of a fundamentally fair trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Crawford’s convictions and sentences. View "Crawford v. State" on Justia Law

On October 28, 2015, two high school students, Darious Anderson and Stanley Winston, attempted to sell a revolver with the help of 17-year-old Spencer Robinson. After failing to find a buyer, the three walked through a neighborhood shortcut. There, Robinson asked to hold the gun, then pointed it at Anderson and Winston, declaring he was taking it. He told them to run before he started shooting, and as they fled, Robinson fired multiple shots, striking Anderson, who later died from his injuries. Winston initially gave police a false account but later identified Robinson as the shooter. Robinson was apprehended after fleeing from police and gave inconsistent statements, ultimately claiming Winston accidentally fired the gun.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Robinson for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault (against both Anderson and Winston), and firearm possession during the commission of a felony. At trial in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, the jury found Robinson guilty of all counts except malice murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder, with additional consecutive sentences for aggravated assault and firearm possession. Robinson’s motion for a new trial was denied.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Robinson’s appeal, in which he argued that the evidence was insufficient for his conviction for aggravated assault against Winston, that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on accomplice corroboration, that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects, and that cumulative errors warranted a new trial. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient, the trial court did not plainly err in its jury instructions, and that any possible deficiency by trial counsel did not prejudice Robinson’s defense. The Court also found no cumulative prejudice requiring a new trial. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Robinson’s convictions and sentences. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

On the night of March 10, 2020, Donnell Graham was fatally shot as he left the fast-food restaurant where he worked in Richmond County, Georgia. Prior to the shooting, Kenneth Green had threatened Graham during a phone call, stating he knew where Graham worked and when he finished his shift. On the night of the incident, Kenneth arranged for Ashley Jones to drive him to pick up Kendrick Green (the appellant) and Torjae Tanksley. Jones testified that Kenneth discussed a plan with Green and Tanksley, who both indicated their readiness. Surveillance footage and eyewitness testimony placed Green and Tanksley at the scene, and after the shooting, both were seen fleeing. Jones further testified that after the shooting, Kenneth asked Green and Tanksley if they had “handled that,” to which both replied affirmatively.A Richmond County grand jury indicted Green, Kenneth, Tanksley, and Jones for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Green, Kenneth, and Tanksley were jointly tried before a jury in October 2023, with Jones testifying against them under an immunity agreement. The jury convicted Green of felony murder and possession of a firearm, but acquitted him of malice murder. The trial judge sentenced Green to life without parole for felony murder and a consecutive five-year term for the firearm charge. Green filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the Superior Court of Richmond County.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Green’s appeal, in which he argued that the evidence was wholly circumstantial and insufficient under OCGA § 24-14-6. The Court held that the statute did not apply because the State presented direct evidence, including Green’s own admissions as testified to by Jones. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Green’s convictions. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

Natalya Shvets was convicted by a jury in 2014 for healthcare fraud and conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, stemming from her role as a nurse at Home Care Hospice, Inc. (HCH). Evidence showed she and other employees created false records for high-priced “continuous care” services, resulting in fraudulent bills submitted to Medicare. Shvets was ordered to pay $253,196 in restitution, jointly and severally with eight other defendants, for her involvement in 52 false bills. The broader scheme allegedly caused $16.2 million in losses to Medicare, with seventeen individuals ordered to pay varying restitution amounts.After sentencing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Shvets moved for an accounting and to declare her restitution judgment satisfied, arguing that payments by herself and her jointly liable co-defendants had collectively exceeded $253,196. The District Court, relying on United States v. Sheets, held that Shvets’s judgment would not be satisfied until she personally paid the full amount or until all defendants collectively paid $16.2 million. The Clerk of Court, using a complex allocation method, also reported Shvets’s balance as outstanding, but the District Court did not resolve whether the Clerk’s method was correct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court held that sentencing judges may issue “hybrid” restitution orders under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, combining joint and several liability with apportioned liability. The Court found the District Court erred by applying the Sheets rule, which conflicted with the language of Shvets’s judgment. The Third Circuit directed the District Court to determine whether the Clerk’s accounting method is fair and appropriate, and to decide if Shvets’s restitution judgment has been satisfied. View "United States v. Shvets" on Justia Law

After being released from federal prison, an individual began a term of supervised release that required him to comply with several conditions, including avoiding new criminal conduct, truthfully answering his probation officer’s questions, and participating in mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. Within two months, the probation office alleged that he violated four conditions: failing to enroll in required treatment, lying to his probation officer about receiving services, missing a scheduled drug test, and committing a new state misdemeanor offense involving assault and stalking.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee held a revocation hearing. The individual admitted to three of the violations—lying to his probation officer, failing to enroll in treatment, and missing the drug test—and contested only the allegation that he committed a new state crime. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had committed the misdemeanor, in addition to the three admitted violations. The court revoked his supervised release and imposed a 14-month prison sentence, at the top of the applicable guidelines range. The individual appealed, challenging only the finding that he committed the new state offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error. The appellate court concluded that even if the district court erred in finding the new state offense, any such error was harmless because the three uncontested violations independently justified revocation and the sentence imposed. The court held that a single violation is sufficient to support revocation, and the guidelines range and sentence would have been the same regardless of the contested finding. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Kidd" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with one count of wire fraud after orchestrating a scheme in which he falsely presented himself as a wealthy and experienced investor to at least ten individuals, promising guaranteed returns on investments in the stock market and a cannabis store. Instead of investing the funds, he used the money for personal expenses. To maintain the appearance of legitimacy, he provided promissory notes and sent updates to victims about their supposed investments. When victims requested their money, he made excuses and, at times, threatened them.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to wire fraud. At sentencing, the court applied a two-level enhancement for abuse of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, based on evidence that the defendant had assumed a position of trust with his victims by posing as a financial advisor and investor. The court also imposed two discretionary conditions of supervised release, requiring participation in substance abuse testing and treatment, and transitional support services. The defendant objected to the abuse-of-trust enhancement but did not object to the supervised release conditions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal interpretations de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the abuse-of-trust enhancement was properly applied because the defendant provided sufficient indicia to his victims that he held a position of private trust, even though he was an imposter. The court also held that the challenged supervised release conditions did not constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority to the Probation Officer, relying on its precedent. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Brewer" on Justia Law

An attorney based in Oklahoma developed a business model to help out-of-state clients enter the state’s medical marijuana industry, which is governed by strict residency and disclosure requirements. He created a two-entity structure: one company, with nominal Oklahoma-resident owners, obtained the necessary state licenses, while a second company, owned and operated by out-of-state clients, ran the actual marijuana operations. The attorney did not disclose the true ownership structure to state authorities, and in some cases, marijuana was grown before the required state registrations were obtained. State authorities began investigating after noticing irregularities, such as multiple licenses listing the same address and repeated use of the same Oklahoma residents as owners, many of whom had little or no involvement in the businesses.Oklahoma state prosecutors charged the attorney with multiple felonies related to his business practices, including conspiracy and submitting false documents. While those charges were pending, a federal grand jury indicted him for drug conspiracy and maintaining drug-involved premises, based on the same conduct. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the attorney moved to enjoin his federal prosecution, arguing that a congressional appropriations rider barred the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute individuals complying with state medical marijuana laws. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion, finding that the attorney had not substantially complied with Oklahoma law, particularly due to nondisclosure of ownership interests and failure to obtain required registrations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the appropriations rider does bar the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute private individuals who comply with state medical marijuana laws. However, the court found that the attorney failed to substantially comply with Oklahoma’s requirements, so the rider did not protect him. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. View "United States v. Stacy" on Justia Law

The defendant, a former U.S. Coast Guard employee, was convicted by a jury of murdering two co-workers in Alaska. At the time of the government’s collection action, he held approximately $450,000 in a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account, a federal retirement savings plan. His wife had a statutory right to a joint and survivor annuity from the account, and federal law generally requires spousal consent for lump-sum withdrawals. Following his conviction, the government sought to collect the entire balance of his TSP account as restitution for the victims’ families.The United States District Court for the District of Alaska initially ordered restitution from the defendant’s retirement and disability income, including his TSP funds, but limited lump-sum withdrawals from the TSP without spousal consent, instead permitting monthly payments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the restitution order, holding that the district court could not use the All Writs Act to bypass statutory garnishment limits and remanded for a determination of whether the defendant’s benefit streams constituted “earnings” subject to a 25% garnishment cap under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.On remand, the district court issued amended restitution orders authorizing the government to collect the entire TSP account balance as a lump sum. The defendant appealed, arguing that statutory spousal protections limited the government to periodic garnishments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the government may only cash out a defendant’s TSP account to satisfy a restitution order under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act if the plan’s terms would allow the defendant to do so at the time of the order. Because spousal consent was required and not obtained, the court vacated the restitution orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted by a jury in Rice County District Court of 29 criminal offenses, including racketeering, theft, receiving stolen property, and falsifying information. The convictions arose from a scheme involving the purchase of used vehicles, alteration of vehicle identification numbers, and the sale of stolen vehicles. The district court sentenced the individual to 117 months in prison and ordered restitution to 13 victims, totaling over $124,000. The defendant challenged all restitution awards, specifically disputing four of them on the grounds that they were not sufficiently connected to his convictions and that he lacked the ability to pay.After a hearing, the Rice County District Court vacated the four disputed restitution awards, finding that the State had not met its burden to prove the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence. The State appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reinstated the four awards. The appellate court interpreted Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, subdivision 3(a), to require that a defendant’s affidavit must specifically indicate whether the challenge is to the amount of loss, the appropriateness of restitution for the item, or both. The court concluded that the defendant’s affidavit only challenged the connection between the restitution and the convictions, not the amount of loss, and thus the burden did not shift to the State.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(a), an offender’s affidavit must specify for each item whether the challenge is to the amount of loss, the appropriateness of restitution, or both, before the burden shifts to the State. However, recognizing that prior case law may have caused confusion, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to allow the parties to comply with this clarified standard. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case was remanded. View "State v. Seeman" on Justia Law

Several individuals were convicted in separate proceedings in the Huntsville Municipal Court for violating city ordinances. Each person appealed his conviction to the Madison Circuit Court, seeking a trial de novo. Before those trials occurred, each defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the municipal-court complaints failed to properly allege that the ordinances had been duly adopted and, in some cases, that the complaints referenced non-existent sections of the Alabama Code. All of these arguments were raised for the first time in the circuit court.The Madison Circuit Court granted the motions to dismiss in each case, sometimes stating that the complaints failed to confer jurisdiction. The City of Huntsville appealed these dismissals to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which consolidated the cases, reversed the circuit court’s judgments, and remanded for further proceedings. The defendants then sought review by the Supreme Court of Alabama, which consolidated the cases for decision.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that any defects in the municipal-court complaints did not deprive the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction, as that jurisdiction is conferred by statute. The Court further held that the defendants did not waive their challenges to the sufficiency of the complaints by failing to raise them in municipal court; such challenges could be raised during the pendency of the proceedings, including in the circuit court. However, the Court concluded that the municipal-court complaints met the requirements of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 13.2(a), and did not need to include formal averments about the adoption of the ordinances. The Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals. View "Ex parte Sandifer" on Justia Law