Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted co-defendants K.S and T.H of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Both challenged several district court rulings, and T.H. appealed his conviction. 
 The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that K.S. argued that, instead of co-Defendant’s testimony, the court should have admitted co-Defendant’s letter under the residual hearsay exception. The court explained the residual exception is to “be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” To fall within the exception, the statement must be “supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.” The district court concluded that the letter was not trustworthy. Although the court did not explain how it reached its conclusion, its “discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial.”   T.H. argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The evidence established that the middleman bought methamphetamine from K.H. and sold it to the CI. The CI testified to arranging the buy, and the middleman’s phone records showed calls with T.H. on the day of the purchase. After the middleman bought methamphetamine from someone in the white S.U.V., officers identified T.H. as the driver. The plastic bag the middleman later sold the CI had fingerprints from all three men. Additionally, the jury heard testimony from K.T. and D.S. that T.H. sold drugs in the same car and the same location as the controlled buy. This evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy conviction. View "United States v. Kieffer Simmons" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to 84 months imprisonment. Harrison appealed, challenging the admission of evidence of his prior firearm conviction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained Defendant’s knowledge is at issue here because he did not plead guilty. Thus, Defendant’s prior conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm was relevant to prove knowledge. Further, Defendant’s conviction was not too remote in time. Although it occurred 8 years before his arrest in this case, he was incarcerated for more than 3 of those years. Therefore, based on its compliance with the requirements of Oaks, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior firearm conviction. View "United States v. Robert Harrison" on Justia Law

I.M. and J.R. (collectively, “Appellants”) were convicted by a jury of charges alleged in a ten-count superseding indictment for offenses committed as part of a large drug conspiracy. The district court sentenced them to 360 and 336 months in prison, respectively. On appeal, I.M. challenged both the denial of his motion for severance and his sentence; J.R. challenged the denial of his motion for recusal, the denial of his motions to suppress wiretap and video surveillance recordings and his convictions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first explained I.M. has given the court no reason to conclude that this was not an adequate safeguard in his case or that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to sever. Thus, the denial of I.M.’s severance motion was not an abuse of discretion. Further, the district court’s statement that I.M.’s “criminal history consists of violent acts and possession of firearms” did not mischaracterize his criminal history. Thus, the district court did not commit procedural error.   Moreover, the court held J.R. has failed to point to any facts establishing that the district judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The district judge’s issuance of some of the warrants, in this case, does not, of itself, require recusal. Any other challenges to the wiretap recordings are also waived because J.R. has failed to meaningfully explain why his motion to suppress should have been granted. View "United States v. Isaac May" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a sentence of ninety-six months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court after Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant argued that the district court committed procedural error by miscalculating his base offense level under the sentencing guidelines.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has held that second-degree robbery under this Missouri statute is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act because the offense requires “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Because Defendant’s prior conviction for second-degree robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG Section 4B1.2(a)(1), the district court did not err in determining a base offense level of 20 under USSG Section 2K2.1(a)(4). Accordingly, the court held that there was no procedural error. View "United States v. George Gordon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court sentenced him to 262 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging: (1) the admission of evidence (field tests and a photograph); (2) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (3) the sentence (an adjustment and an enhancement).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the evidence was not inadmissible simply because it was prejudicial. Further, the court explained that the jury saw the pistol and photographs of it. An ATF agent, testifying as an expert, testified that it met the federal definition of a firearm. The pistol and the testimony are sufficient to prove that the pistol was a firearm. Accordingly, the court held that the evidence sufficiently proved that Defendant’s .45-caliber pistol was a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Sections 921(a)(3) and 922(g). Finally, the district court found that Defendant was a drug dealer—not merely a drug user—due to the packaging of the drugs, the evidence found in the search and police investigations, and his own testimony that he intended to distribute drugs. As such, the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement. View "United States v. Gregory McCoy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He argued that evidence should have been excluded from trial due to an unlawful search and seizure, that he had a constitutional right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm as a convicted felon, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.   The Eighth Circuit concluded that none of the contentions has merit and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court found that the officer’s action was permissible under the Fourth Amendment on at least two bases: as an investigative search based on reasonable suspicion of crime and danger and as a search for evidence-based on probable cause under exigent circumstances. Further, the court held that the longstanding prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons is constitutional, and the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss. Moreover, the court wrote that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that Defendant knowingly possessed the firearm. Finally, the court explained that a rational jury could have found that the firearm was placed strategically in a location where it was hidden from view but readily accessible to one who was seated in a wheelchair and carrying drugs in his undergarment. View "United States v. Sylvester Cunningham" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of distributing a controlled substance near a protected location, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to 380 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury and challenges the reasonableness of his sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant specifically requested separating the protected location element—Proposed Instruction No. 15—from the remainder of the elements of Count 1—Proposed Instruction No. 12. Defendant then filed objections to certain instructions but failed to object to either Instruction No. 12 or 15 prior to trial. He further failed to do so at trial or in his post-trial motion. Defendant “cannot complain that the district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked.” Further, the court wrote that Evans controls here. Henderson’s interpretation of the career offender enhancement was “neither unexpected nor indefensible” and “had a rational basis.” The district court did not err in applying this enhancement. The court also explained that “when a district court varies downward and sentences below a presumptively reasonable Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” Here, Defendant offered no convincing reasoning to rebut this presumption. View "United States v. Patrick Webb, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant received a 108-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon. He challenged the base-offense-level calculation, a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, and the overall length of the sentence. At issue on appeal is whether the crime of assault while displaying a dangerous weapon is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. Section 4B1.2(a).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that each of the three ways of committing assault in Iowa requires intent. Thus, contrary to Defendant’s contention, the holding in Borden v. United States is of no help to Defendant. Further, beyond the base offense level, Defendant believes that he did not deserve a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm “in connection with another felony offense.” The court held that there is Defendant’s guilty plea, which necessarily required him to admit that he possessed the gun. Second, there was a video of him wielding what appeared to be the same gun just days earlier, which shows that he had “authority” and “control” over it. Third, no one disputes that the gun’s location under the front passenger seat placed it within arm’s reach of him. On these facts, the court could not say the district court’s finding that he was “armed” was erroneous. Finally, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his 108-month prison sentence. The court held that given the 12-month downward variance he received, “it is nearly inconceivable” that the district court “abused its discretion in not varying downward even further.” View "United States v. Catrell Green" on Justia Law

Several current or former members of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly and a legislative aide petitioned for writ of mandamus, seeking relief from orders of the district court directing them to comply with subpoenas for documents or testimony in a civil case brought against the State of North Dakota.   The Eighth Circuit denied the writ and directed the district court to quash the subpoenas for petitioner Devlin to testify and for petitioners Holmberg, Wardner, Poolman, Nathe, Devlin, and Ness to produce documents and other information. The court concluded that the district court’s conclusion to the contrary was based on a mistaken conception of the legislative privilege. In its order enforcing the document subpoenas, the district court reasoned that legislative privilege did not apply because the subpoena sought communications between legislators and third parties. The legislative privilege, however, is not limited to a bar on the inquiry into communications among legislators or between legislators and their aides. The privilege is not designed merely to protect the confidentiality of deliberations within a legislative body; it protects the functioning of the legislature more broadly. Communications with constituents, advocacy groups, and others outside the legislature are a legitimate aspect of legislative activity. The use of compulsory evidentiary processes against legislators and their aides to gather evidence about this legislative activity is thus barred by the legislative privilege. View "In Re: North Dakota Legislative Assembly v." on Justia Law

A handgun was found in Defendant’s jacket pocket while he was being treated in a hospital emergency room for a gunshot wound. After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Conley conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued on appeal that because the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) protection officers’ restraint of him in the stabilization room amounted to an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, evidence of the handgun found in his jacket pocket must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that under the balancing test, “the greater the intrusion on a citizen, the greater the justification required for that intrusion to be reasonable.” Noninvestigatory seizures are reasonable if they are “based on specific articulable facts” and the “governmental interest” in effectuating the seizure in question “outweighs the individual’s interest in being free from arbitrary government interference.” The court explained that here the HCMC protection officers’ seizure of Defendant in the stabilization room was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Further, Defendant voluntarily brought himself to HCMC’s emergency room to seek treatment for a gunshot wound that medical staff considered potentially life-threatening. Given those circumstances, Defendant should have reasonably expected the sort of intrusions that are inherent to the provision of emergency medical care, including the removal of one’s clothes to facilitate treatment and—if compelled by the need to maintain a safe environment—even temporary physical restraint. View "United States v. Dywan Conley" on Justia Law