Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Tina Wiseman appealed her sentence on one count of conspiring to distribute oxycodone following a guilty plea. She argued on appeal that the federal district court erred by refusing to consider the disparity between her sentence and similarly situated defendants sentenced in Utah state court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence defendant received. View "United States v. Wiseman" on Justia Law

George Cohlmia appealed a district court's decision to award attorney’s fees to St. John Medical Center pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). This case arose from two surgeries Cohlmia performed: one patient died as a result of surgery, another was permanently disfigured. After the Hospital conducted an internal review, it concluded Cohlmia failed to follow proper medical protocols, and suspended the doctor’s staff privileges. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on all of the doctor’s claims. The Hospital thereafter sought attorney’s fees under the HCQIA. Finding that the district court did not abuse it's discretion in awarding fees under the Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Cohlmia, et al v. St. John Medical Center, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Carl Romero was convicted by a jury of assaulting and killing Naayaitch Friday. He appealed the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence found after searches of the car he drove and his bedroom. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the search warrant for the car was supported by probable cause and that investigating officers properly relied on his stepfather’s consent to search his bedroom. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Defendant Philip Grigsby appealed his 260-year sentence imposed pursuant to the child pornography production guideline, U.S.S.G. 2G2.1. He argued the guideline was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because it was “defective.” According to Defendant, the production guideline routinely generates offense levels that result in a recommended guideline sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, and fails to distinguish between levels of culpability by establishing enhancements for conduct present in most cases and thus undeserving of punishment beyond the core offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence: "a district court does not err by deferring to the Guidelines where the sentence imposed is justified in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)." View "United States v. Grigsby" on Justia Law

This case arose when 702 plaintiffs from 26 different states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed twelve nearly identical product liability actions against the defendants in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. The defendants are manufacturers of transvaginal mesh medical devices. The plaintiffs were women who were implanted with the devices and their husbands, who assert loss-of-consortium claims. None of the individual actions contained 100 or more plaintiffs. Each of the actions included at least one New Jersey resident plaintiff. Each complaint specifically disclaimed federal question and federal diversity jurisdiction, and included provisions that admitted the claims had been joined for the purpose of pretrial discovery and proceedings but disclaimed joinder for trial purposes. All twelve actions were assigned to the same state court judge. The defendants, corporate residents of New Jersey, removed the actions to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, relying on both diversity jurisdiction and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) removal jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity existed between the parties because in each action, the New Jersey citizen plaintiff had been fraudulently joined and should therefore be disregarded for diversity purposes. They further contended that jurisdiction was available under CAFA’s "mass action" provision because, by filing all of the suits in the same court before the same judge, plaintiffs had proposed a joint trial of claims involving more than 100 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved to remand eleven of the actions, involving 650 plaintiffs, to state court. The district court granted their motion. It declined to adopt the procedural misjoinder doctrine raised by the defendants, and concluded that plaintiffs had not in fact proposed a joint trial of their claims. Defendants appealed that order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand of those cases to state court. View "Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al" on Justia Law

In August 2009, defendant Tracy Morgan and his friend, Marvin Tabor, plotted to kidnap and rob Mario Armendariz. Tabor's brother-in-law, defendant Augustus Sanford, persuaded a police officer's minor child to steal four weapons and parts of a police uniform (cargo pants, a black police shirt, and an orange reflective vest) from his father in exchange for two ounces of marijuana. Sanford also painted his Chevrolet Tahoe black. Pursuant to their plan, Morgan attached a GPS tracking device to Armendariz's car while Armendariz was visiting Tabor's home. Tabor then tracked Armendariz's location on the Internet using Google Maps, enabling Morgan and defendant Killiu Ford to follow Armendariz in their vehicle. Sanford wore the stolen police gear; defendants then tracked Armendariz and his wife, Perla Flores, and their two young daughters outside of a cousin's house. The family saw two armed men exit a black Chevrolet Tahoe and at least one other man arrive from across the street. Two of the men zip-tied Armendariz's arms and legs together, covered his head, and put him into the back of the Tahoe. Ford questioned Armendariz about where he kept his money while an unknown co-conspirator drove the Tahoe around. Eventually the Tahoe dropped off Ford at Armendariz's home. Meanwhile, Sanford drove Ms. Flores and her daughters in her car to the Flores-Armendariz home. Defendants confronted Ms. Flores, demanding to know where Armendariz kept his money. Morgan put a gun to the three-year-old daughter's head, and Ms. Flores then told them the money was under her daughter's dresser. Morgan retrieved $30,000 from under the dresser and left the home. Later that night or early the next morning, Ford and Sanford looked for Morgan and found him at a Taco Bell. They divided the money taken from Armendariz's home. A jury convicted defendants of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each defendant brought a separate appeal, raising overlapping but not identical issues. Finding no reversible errors to any defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Sevgi Muhammad was indicted on 24 counts of mail fraud, two counts of making a false statement, and one count of stealing public money. All the charges arose out of Defendant’s obtaining housing assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). She pleaded no contest to one count of making a false statement. At the sentencing hearing, however, she moved to withdraw her plea. The district court denied the motion, and sentenced defendant to serve three years of probation and pay restitution. On appeal defendant argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw the plea. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Eric Kamahele, Daniel Maumau, Kepa Maumau, Sitamipa Toki, and Mataika Tuai appealed their convictions arising from armed robberies and shootings in connection with the Tongan Crips Gang (TCG) in Glendale, Utah. After a jury trial, Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were found guilty of conspiring to commit a racketeering offense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Kamahele, both Maumaus, and Toki were found guilty of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (VICAR). Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were also found guilty of violating the Hobbs Act. And all were found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2006), for using guns during their respective crimes. All defendants argued the district court erred by: (1) admitting expert testimony about the TCG's history, structure, and activities; and (2) denying their motions for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 based on the Government's failure to prove various elements of RICO and VICAR. Four defendants raised individual claims pertaining to alleged trial court errors in instructing the jury, selecting the jury, admitting certain evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and deciding the appropriate sentences. Rejecting all of the defendants' arguments, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Kamahele" on Justia Law

Keith Scott Pulliam was indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an armed career criminal. He moved to suppress the fruits (firearms) of a search of his home. On appeal, he claimed the application for the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause and the search by state officers was unreasonably executed. After the district judge denied his suppression motion he pled guilty under a plea agreement, which reserved his right to appeal the denial. The judge accepted the plea and sentenced Pulliam to a 75 month prison term. Exercising his reserved right, Pulliam appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Pulliam" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Gwen Bergman was arrested when the hit-man she thought she hired to kill her husband was in fact an undercover police officer. After trial, it emerged that defendant's lawyer was not a lawyer-in-fact, but a con man. Defendant applied for habeas relief on the ground that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court agreed with her: the court vacated her conviction, and discharged her from supervised release (she had finished her prison term). Assuming the court's decision to vacate the conviction it won at defendant's first trial was without prejudice to a new trial with a (real) defense lawyer, the government asked the court to set a date. The district court refused, stating that its discharge order "implicitly" forbade any effort to secure a valid conviction at a second trial. The government appealed the district court's decision to the Tenth Circuit. The government's appeal raised the question of whether defendant could be exposed to a new trial and lawful conviction despite having successfully petitioned for habeas relief and served her jail sentence. Rather than contend categorically that only double jeopardy problems may preclude retrial, the government suggested that the remedy the district court selected was too attenuated from the right it found violated: defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. "[T]he presumptively appropriate remedy for a trial with an ineffective lawyer is a new trial with an effective one. . . . the district court failed to identify any reason why that presumption is inapplicable here; and in these circumstances refusing a new trial amounts to an abuse of discretion." View "United States v. Bergman" on Justia Law