Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The government alleged Defendant-Appellant Richard Clark, along with other co-conspirators, manipulated shares of several penny-stocks by using false and backdated documents to make those shares publically tradable, then coordinated the trading among themselves to create the false appearance of an active market for those shares. The shares were sold after the prices surged. The conspirators laundered the proceeds through multiple bank accounts and nominees (a "pump-and-dump" scheme). Defendant was charged and convicted on multiple counts for his participation in the scheme. He appealed his conviction to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the pretrial placement of a caveat on his property violated his constitutional rights; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the district court erred in refusing to appoint additional or substitute counsel better versed in complex securities issues; (4) the district court erred by failing to sever his case from his co-conspirator's; and (5) his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by a fourteen-month delay between filing of the indictment and the start of trial. The Tenth Circuit addressed each of Defendant's contentions in its opinion, but found no discernible error. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendants Randy Dyke and Don Steele were caught in a government undercover sting operation and charged with drug, forgery and counterfeiting charges. A jury rejected their entrapment defense. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendants argued (among other things) that the charges against them should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been dismissed as a matter of law because the undercover operation amounted to "outrageous governmental conduct." After a lengthy analysis, the Court declined to adopt other circuits' use of an "outrageous governmental conduct" standard, concluding that defendants failed to persuade the Court that they might prevail under any of the tests suggested by the case law. Defendants argued in the alternative that they were entrapped, the evidence presented against them was insufficient to support the charges against them, and that the trial court erred in calculating their sentences. Finding no entrapment, that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, and no error in their sentences, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dyke" on Justia Law

Defendant Fabian Dunbar pled guilty to distributing cocaine, for which he received a 48-month prison sentence pursuant to a plea agreement. The agreement also stated the parties would recommend defendant receive a 12-month consecutive sentence for violating a term of supervised release from a 2006 sentence. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendant argued: (1) the district court conducted an inadequate inquiry into his request for new counsel (and abused its discretion by denying that request); (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his pro se requests to withdraw the plea agreement; (3) the plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily (because counsel gave him inaccurate information); and (4) his sentence regarding supervised release was unreasonable. Finding no merit to any of defendant's four claims of error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Magnan pled guilty to three county of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction, and to life for the shooting. In his application for habeas relief to the district court, Petitioner argued that his crimes took place in "Indian country," and that as a result, the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that a 1970 conveyance of property from the Seminole Nation to the federal Housing Authority extinguished any "Indian Country" designation; even assuming that the Seminole Nation retained some rights to the property in question, those rights were insufficient to deprive the State of criminal jurisdiction. The district court denied the writ application but granted a certificate of appealability. After its review of the case, the Tenth Circuit concluded that conveyance of the surface estate to the land in which the crimes took place were insufficient to extinguish Seminole Nation control over it. Therefore, the land in question was indeed "Indian Country" and therefore the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case with instructions to grant Petitioner habeas relief. View "Magnan v. Workman, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Siale Angilau was indicted by a Utah grand jury for the shooting deaths of two deputy U.S. Marshals. One count charged racketeering conspiracy; assaulting a federal officer, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the three shooting-related charges as barred by Double Jeopardy, because those charges had been dismissed in his federal prosecution. The court granted the motion as to the assault count, but denied as to the firearms counts. Defendant appealed that ruling while his case was pending trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear defendant's double-jeopardy claim, but lacked jurisdiction for any others still pending. The Court concluded there was no merit to defendant's double jeopardy claim, and neither firearms charges were barred by collateral estoppel because the prior dismissal of those charges did not resolve any element of the charges in his favor. View "United States v. Angilau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Tyla Newbold appealed a magistrate judge's order that granted her Social Security benefits from October 2006 to November 2007, but denied them thereafter. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration determined Plaintiff had been disabled during that period due to physical and mental impairments, but that she recovered and the disability ceased. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) used the proper medical-improvement standard in deciding Plaintiff ceased being disabled. Finding that the ALJ used the proper standard, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Newbold v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Shannon Cavanaugh suffered a serious head injury after she was tasered by a Woods Cross City police officer. She sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The jury found for the City and the officer who tasered her. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff argued the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to exclude certain testimony from the officer concerning his beliefs prior to using the taser; (2) in refusing to grant Plaintiff a new trial due to insufficient evidence she was an immediate threat; (2) in refusing to instruct the jury on what constitutes "resisting arrest;" and (4) refusing to submit Plaintiff's excessive force question to the jury. Rejecting all of Plaintiff's ground for appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court. View "Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Rebecca Christie was convicted for second-degree murder and child abuse for the death of her infant daughter. Defendant was an avid player of "World of Warcraft," often engaging gameplay for hours and hours on end. As the Tenth Circuit noted, the neglect of the child wasn't fatal if Defendant's husband was around to provide care. When the husband left for an out-of-state deployment, nine days later the child died from dehydration. Defendant raised multiple issues on appeal, implicating her Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. After its review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding no violations of Defendant's constitutional rights, or errors entitling her to dismissal of her convictions. View "United States v. Christie" on Justia Law

Appellant Keith Cressman objected to the image on the standard Oklahoma license plate. He believed the image of a Native American shooting an arrow toward the sky (a depiction of a sculpture entitled "Sacred Rain Arrow") was religious speech he did not believe in and did not want to display on his vehicle. Oklahoma imposes sanctions for covering the image, or a separate fee for a vanity plate that has no image. Because he must either display the image or pay an additional fee, Appellant argued speech was being imposed on him in violation of his First Amendment rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court who initially dismissed Appellant's complaint: (1) the image on the license plates is ideological, symbolic speech that qualified for First Amendment protection; and (2) the district court erred by assuming or speculating about certain facts rather than accepting them as true for consideration of Appellant's motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cressman v. Thompson, et al" on Justia Law

Shengyahg Zhou pled guilty to trafficking and attempted trafficking of counterfeit goods. He was sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison, three years' supervised release and to pay restitution. Zhou contended the district court made multiple errors in arriving at his sentence. Finding no errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Zhou" on Justia Law