Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A woman was kidnapped and raped in her rural home after her husband left for work. The perpetrator bound, gagged, and blindfolded her, then drove her to another location where he assaulted her. After being released in a field, the victim contacted police, who collected DNA evidence but initially could not identify the assailant. Investigators suspected the crime was premeditated due to the remote location, timing, and other factors, and obtained a “reverse keyword search warrant” for Google records of searches related to the victim’s name and address. Google identified two searches for the victim’s address made just before the attack, both linked to the same IP address, which was traced to John Edward Kurtz. Surveillance and DNA from a discarded cigarette butt confirmed the match, and Kurtz confessed to this and other assaults.Kurtz moved to suppress the evidence from the Google search, arguing the search warrant lacked probable cause individualized to him and that his internet search records were protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas denied the motion, and a jury found Kurtz guilty on all charges. He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, holding that Kurtz lacked an expectation of privacy in his Google search records or IP address, reasoning that he voluntarily provided this information to a third party and had agreed to Google’s privacy policy allowing cooperation with law enforcement.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their unprotected internet search queries and IP addresses. The court held that the average user does not have such an expectation, as using a search engine like Google involves voluntarily providing information to a third party with clear notice that the information may be shared, including with law enforcement. The judgment below was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Kurtz" on Justia Law

After a shooting incident outside a restaurant in 2003, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felonious assault, attempted murder, and related firearm offenses, as well as having weapons while under disability. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony identifying the defendant as the shooter. The defense suggested that another individual, who was at the scene and arrested shortly after the shooting, was the actual perpetrator. The defendant was found guilty on all counts and received consecutive prison sentences.The defendant’s convictions were affirmed by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, although the case was remanded for resentencing due to the trial court’s failure to state facts supporting the consecutive sentences. Nearly two decades later, the defendant discovered a previously undisclosed police report indicating that the victim initially identified the other individual as the shooter. The defendant filed for leave to move for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence. The trial court granted leave, but ultimately denied the motion for a new trial without holding an oral hearing. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without an oral hearing.The Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether a trial court must conduct an oral hearing on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6). The court held that while an evidentiary hearing is required—meaning the court must consider affidavits or sworn statements—there is no requirement that this hearing be oral. The decision to hold an oral hearing is left to the trial court’s discretion. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. View "State v. Bostick" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, while severely intoxicated, drove her vehicle into oncoming traffic, resulting in a collision that killed another driver and seriously injured two passengers, one of whom was partially paralyzed. At the time of the incident, her blood alcohol content was over three times the legal limit. The defendant had three prior drinking-and-driving convictions and was charged with felony DUI, vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and related offenses. She pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide-DUI and vehicular assault-DUI in exchange for a sentencing range of eight to thirty-three years, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling twenty-nine years, including a twenty-four-year sentence for vehicular homicide-DUI.After sentencing, the defendant sought a proportionality review, arguing that her sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate. The district court denied her motion, finding that vehicular homicide-DUI was per se a grave or serious offense. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed with this designation, holding that vehicular homicide-DUI is not per se grave or serious because it does not require proof of criminal intent, but nonetheless upheld the sentence, finding it was not grossly disproportionate.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether vehicular homicide-DUI should be classified as per se grave or serious and whether the defendant’s sentence was grossly disproportionate. The court held that vehicular homicide-DUI is not per se grave or serious for proportionality review purposes due to its strict liability nature, lacking a mens rea requirement. However, the court also held that, given the facts of the case—including the harm caused, the defendant’s history, and the sentence’s statutory authorization—the twenty-four-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "People v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Two individuals who held leadership positions at a local public housing authority in South Bend, Indiana, orchestrated a scheme in which they collaborated with several contractors to submit false invoices for maintenance work that was never performed. The contractors cashed checks issued by the housing authority for these fictitious services and shared the proceeds with the two employees. This fraudulent activity came to light after a casino employee observed the pair gambling large amounts of cash and reported the suspicious behavior to law enforcement. Following an investigation, both individuals were indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, several counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, and federal program theft.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana presided over their trial. After the government presented its case, both defendants moved for judgments of acquittal on the wire fraud charges; the court reserved ruling, and the jury ultimately convicted both individuals on the majority of counts, although one was acquitted on a wire fraud count. The district court denied the motions for acquittal, imposed prison sentences, and ordered substantial restitution. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the appeals. It held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the bank fraud convictions because the government failed to prove that any false statement was made to a bank, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), and therefore reversed those convictions. However, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the wire fraud convictions, finding that a rational jury could conclude the fraudulent scheme furthered the transmission of funds via interstate wire. The court also affirmed one defendant’s sentence enhancement for abuse of a position of trust, finding no clear error or harmless error. The case was remanded solely to correct a clerical error in the restitution order. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A man used a social media application to communicate with what he believed to be a minor. In reality, he was interacting with a law enforcement officer posing as a 14-year-old girl. Their exchange included plans to meet for sexual contact, and when he arrived at the agreed location, law enforcement apprehended him. Physical evidence found in his vehicle supported the allegation that he intended to engage in sexual activity. At trial, the defendant asserted that he did not know he was interacting with a minor and claimed he had deleted the relevant message thread, losing access to the initial messages where age was mentioned.The Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, conducted the trial, where a jury found him guilty of meeting a minor for lewd purposes, contacting a minor for a sexual offense, and attempted lewd act upon a child. The trial judge sentenced him to probation. The defense argued that the jury instructions regarding mistake of fact were erroneous, specifically that they required any mistaken belief about the minor’s age to be reasonable. The prosecution conceded the instructional error but asserted it was harmless.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that a mistake of fact as to the minor’s age must be reasonable, when the charged offenses require only an actual belief due to their specific intent elements. The appellate court found the error was prejudicial, emphasizing that the jury might have credited the defendant’s testimony but was prevented from considering an unreasonable yet genuinely held belief. Consequently, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment. View "P. v. Ismaiel" on Justia Law

Milder Escobar-Temal, a Guatemalan national, unlawfully entered the United States in 2012, living and working in Nashville, Tennessee. In October 2022, Nashville police responding to a domestic incident found three firearms at his residence. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals unlawfully present in the United States. Escobar-Temal had no prior criminal convictions except a dismissed charge for driving without a license.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Escobar-Temal’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that § 922(g)(5)(A) violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied. The district court reasoned that, while the Second Amendment’s protections may extend to unlawfully present persons, historical tradition supported disarming those who had not sworn allegiance to the state. After denying the motion, Escobar-Temal pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutional issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does protect individuals unlawfully present in the United States if they have developed sufficient connections to the national community. However, it further held that there is a longstanding historical tradition of disarming groups lacking a formal relationship with the government, such as unlawfully present noncitizens, due to regulatory difficulties rather than inherent dangerousness. Therefore, the court concluded that § 922(g)(5)(A) does not violate the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied to Escobar-Temal, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Escobar-Temal" on Justia Law

Police in Wilmington, Delaware, were monitoring social media when a detective saw a video on Instagram that appeared to show Marvin Swanson, a person legally prohibited from possessing firearms, mimicking shooting motions and possibly displaying what looked like a gun magazine in his waistband. Shortly after, a confidential informant, known to be reliable, sent the detective the same video and claimed to have personally observed Swanson in the area with a firearm. The police responded to the location, saw Swanson in the described clothing, conducted a pat down that did not reveal a weapon, but found a loaded handgun in a recycling bin about 25–30 feet away. Swanson was handcuffed and transported to the police station, where he voluntarily provided a DNA sample. DNA testing later matched Swanson to the gun, leading to his arrest for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied Swanson’s motion to suppress the DNA evidence, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and that the continued detention and transport to the station were reasonable, necessary, and related to the investigation. A jury later convicted Swanson.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that while the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop based on the informant’s tip and corroborating observations, the subsequent transport of Swanson to the police station amounted to a de facto arrest. The Court held that this arrest was not supported by probable cause because the evidence linking Swanson to the gun was insufficient at the time of the arrest. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that the motion to suppress should have been granted. View "Swanson v. State" on Justia Law

In December 2020, Troy Lee Shaw was found unconscious in his car by police officers and subsequently charged with felony driving under the influence of a drug, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Shaw admitted to having two prior convictions for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, stemming from a 2002 incident in which his impaired driving resulted in the deaths of a mother and her young son. These two prior convictions made him eligible for a third-strike sentence under California’s Three Strikes law.Shaw requested that the Placer County Superior Court dismiss one of his prior strikes, arguing that both convictions arose from a single criminal act and citing People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635. The trial court denied his motion and imposed a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life for the driving under the influence charge, with concurrent six-month sentences for the other possession offenses. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the sentence, relying on People v. Rusconi (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 273, and reasoned that because Shaw’s prior act harmed two victims, it was distinguishable from Vargas, which involved a single victim.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It held that under the Three Strikes law, when two prior convictions arise from a single criminal act—even if that act harmed multiple victims—a trial court must dismiss one of the strikes for sentencing purposes. The court disapproved the contrary holding in Rusconi and directed the lower court to resentence Shaw consistent with this ruling. View "P. v. Shaw" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury charged the defendant with possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Task force officers at a bus station in Omaha, Nebraska identified the defendant’s suitcase as suspicious and removed it from the bus’s luggage compartment. After the defendant claimed and approached his bag, an officer questioned him about his travel plans and requested permission to search the suitcase, which the defendant consented to. The defendant then fled, prompting officers to detain him and search his belongings, ultimately discovering firearms and controlled substances.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his suitcase, backpack, and person, arguing that the officers’ actions constituted unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. A magistrate judge recommended denying the suppression motion, concluding that the suitcase was not seized, the initial encounter was consensual, the consent to search was valid, and reasonable suspicion supported the later detention. The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska adopted the recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. At trial, a jury acquitted the defendant of possession with intent to distribute but found him guilty of simple possession and the firearms offense. The district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 144 months’ imprisonment and a $2,500 fine, the latter without findings about the defendant’s ability to pay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, holding there was no Fourth Amendment seizure of the suitcase, the initial encounter was consensual, the defendant’s consent to search was voluntary, and reasonable suspicion justified the post-flight detention. The court also affirmed the custodial sentence as substantively reasonable but vacated the fine, remanding for proper findings on the defendant’s ability to pay. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was convicted in 2012 of several offenses related to drug trafficking and violence, including attempted Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of using or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The firearm convictions were predicated on the attempted robbery and a murder committed during a narcotics conspiracy. The attempted robbery involved physically assaulting a drug dealer with a firearm. The district court sentenced the petitioner to a total of 100 years in prison, including consecutive sentences for the § 924(c) convictions.After his conviction and unsuccessful direct appeal, the petitioner filed an initial motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. He then sought permission to file a second § 2255 motion, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Davis (which struck down § 924(c)’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague) and United States v. Taylor (which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under the elements clause) required vacatur of his firearm brandishing conviction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the trial record and concluded that the petitioner’s conviction for brandishing a firearm during the attempted robbery was based on the elements clause, not the residual clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the petitioner’s second § 2255 motion. The Second Circuit held that because the petitioner’s conviction was based on the elements clause, his claim relied only on a statutory change, not on a new rule of constitutional law, and thus did not satisfy the requirements for a successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court also rejected his argument regarding the second firearm conviction as foreclosed by precedent. View "Barnes v. United States of America" on Justia Law