Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Jose Burciaga-Andasola appealed his convictions for distributing methamphetamine and heroin, arguing that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 605 by improperly testifying as a witness during his jury trial. Andasola’s convictions arose from a February 2017 drug deal: an FBI informant called Andasola, asked to buy three ounces of heroin, and planned to meet up with Andasola later in the week. During this call and others, Andasola discussed the product he was selling using coded language; the meeting was recorded using a hidden camera. The informant delivered packages he received from Andasola to an FBI agent. When weighed and tested, these packages held about two pounds of methamphetamine and half a pound of heroin. Three weeks later, in another recorded meeting with the informant and an undercover agent, Andasola collected payment for the earlier drug deal and discussed prices for future deals. At trial, the government presented testimony from law enforcement in addition to the informant’s phone calls with Andasola arranging the drug deal, hidden-camera video of both the drug deal and the later meeting with the undercover agent to collect payment, and transcripts of and screenshots from the audio recordings and the hidden-camera videos. Andasola testified in his own defense. On cross-examination, Andasola at times suggested that he did not remember the events shown in the video, testifying at one point that though it looked like he was in the videos, Andasola asserted the “video’s been changed” to look like he handed the packages to the informant, which he “never did.” Because defense counsel’s question as to the differences Andasola observed “between that video and this video” implied that there were two videos, the government asked the district court to instruct the jury that there was only one video. In the end, the jury convicted Andasola of both offenses, and the district court imposed concurrent 150-month prison sentences and a five-year term of supervised release. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the district court erred, but that the government established the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Andasola's convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Andasola" on Justia Law

After law enforcement executed a search warrant on Defendants Huanyu Yan and You Lan Xiang’s home (“Doane home”) and seized 878 marijuana plants, Defendants moved to suppress arguing the exception to the good faith rule applied. When law enforcement seizes evidence in good faith reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, that evidence will not be subject to suppression even if a court later invalidates that warrant. The district court disagreed and denied their motion. Defendants proceeded to a joint jury trial where a jury convicted them of: (1) Conspiracy to Manufacture and Possess with Intent to Distribute 100 or more Marijuana Plants; (2) Manufacturing and Possessing with Intent to Distribute 100 or more Marijuana Plants; and (3) Using and Maintaining a Drug-Involved Premises. At the close of the government’s case, Mr. Yan moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the government offered insufficient evidence to sustain his conspiracy conviction. The district court denied his motion. Defendants appealed the district court’s suppression ruling, and Mr. Yan separately appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Xiang" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, law-enforcement officers ordered the passenger, defendant-appellant Colt Malone, to exit the car. He complied, and the officers found a pistol. Based on the presence of this pistol, the government charged Malone with possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. Malone moved to suppress evidence of the pistol, arguing that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by prolonging the traffic stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress, leading Malone to enter a conditional guilty plea and to appeal. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[e]ven if the officers had detoured from the mission of the traffic stop, the district court had made a factual finding that the officers did not prolong the stop and Mr. Malone waived any challenge to that finding. So introduction of the pistol into evidence would not have violated the Fourth Amendment." View "United States v. Malone" on Justia Law

Claud “Rick” Koerber was indicted by a grand jury for wire fraud, tax fraud, and mail fraud relating to a real estate investment scheme. A superseding indictment added to his wire fraud and tax evasion counts, charging him with additional counts for securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. More than five years passed without a trial, resulting in the district court’s dismissing the case with prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act. On the government’s appeal of that decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal-with-prejudice order, identifying errors in its application of the Speedy Trial Act factors. On remand, after reapplying the factors, the district court decided to dismiss without prejudice. So in 2017 the government reindicted Koerber for the offenses earlier charged in the superseding indictment. Koerber’s first trial ended in a hung jury. His second trial ended in jury convictions on all but two counts. The court later imposed a 170-month prison sentence. On appeal, Koerber challenged his prosecution and conviction, claiming a range of errors: from evidentiary rulings, to trial-management issues, to asserted statutory and constitutional violations. After reviewing the briefing, the record, and the relevant law, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Koerber" on Justia Law

Carl Cushing and Kris Hall were convicted by a jury of a drug conspiracy to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine. On appeal, Cushing and Hall raised a number of challenges to their convictions. The Tenth Circuit held that, among other things, the evidence was sufficient to convict both Cushing and Hall of the drug conspiracy, the district court did not err in admitting res gestae evidence to provide the jury appropriate context to the crime, and the expert testimony presented at trial was properly admitted. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed as to each defendant. View "United States v. Cushing" on Justia Law

During a heated argument at a campsite in Yellowstone National Park, defendant-appellant Jeffery Harris pointed a gun at another camper. Rather than charge Harris under the federal assault statute, the federal prosecutor applied the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. 13, to charge Harris with a Wyoming statute that prohibited “threaten[ing] to use a drawn deadly weapon on another unless reasonably necessary [for defense.]” Harris was convicted at trial. On appeal, he contended the federal assault statute precluded assimilation of the Wyoming state assault statute in this case. Determining whether the federal assault statute precluded conviction on the Wyoming state assault statute required the Tenth Circuit to apply the analysis set forth in Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998), an issue of first impression in the Tenth Circuit. The Court agreed with Harris that the Wyoming statute should not have been assimilated, and accordingly reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Kendall Morgan, a former deputy sheriff for LeFlore County, conducted a traffic stop of plaintiff-appellee Chad Osterhout. During the traffic stop, Morgan struck Osterhout in the face and kicked him twice in the ribs. According to Morgan, Osterhout was trying to flee; Osterhout maintained he remained still with his hands raised. Osterhout sued Morgan and the Board of County Commissioners of LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The jury attributed liability to Morgan and the Board, awarding Osterhout $3 million in compensatory damages against both defendants, and $1 million in punitive damages against Morgan. Morgan moved for a new trial or remittitur of damages. The district court remitted the compensatory damages to $2 million, but denied the motion for a new trial. Both defendants appealed. The Board and Mr. Morgan argue that the district court abused its discretion by using a verdict form with a single total for compensatory damages. And the Board argued: (1) the district court erred in denying summary judgment because the notice had been defective and Morgan’s alleged force would have fallen outside the scope of his employment; (2) the jury acted inconsistently by assessing punitive damages and finding that Morgan had acted within the scope of his employment; (3) the verdict against the Board conflicted with the clear weight of the evidence; and (4) the award of compensatory damages was grossly excessive. Morgan argued: (5) the district court should have granted a new trial based on opposing counsel’s misconduct; (6) the compensatory damages were grossly excessive and unsupported by the evidence; and (7) the punitive damages were grossly excessive. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgment. View "Osterhout v. Board of County Commissioners, et al." on Justia Law

Alan Williams pleaded guilty to a single count of bank fraud and stipulated to restitution tied to that count and two others that were later dismissed. The government got its conviction, and Williams limited his sentencing exposure and possible future charges. In this appeal, Williams attempted to step back from his bargain, seeking to keep the favorable plea deal, but to contest the restitution he stipulated was owed. Furthermore, he contested the district court’s apportionment of that total restitution between WebBank and Wells Fargo Bank, as recommended by the Presentence Report (PSR). The Tenth Circuit surmised Williams' first hurdle was to overcome the appeal waiver included in his Plea Agreement. To this, the Court concluded the appeal waiver did not bar his total-restitution challenge: the Plea Agreement allowed Williams to appeal the apportionment of the total restitution and the substantive reasonableness of his prison sentence as well. However, addressing the merits of Williams’s challenges, the Court no reason to disturb the order and sentence, and affirmed. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

VDARE Foundation, Inc. alleged the City of Colorado Springs improperly spoke through a public statement issued by its Mayor and, in so doing, violated VDARE’s First Amendment rights. The public statement, issued two days after the Charlottesville protests, denounced “hate speech” and relayed that the City wouldn’t be providing municipal resources for VDARE’s upcoming private conference in the City. The day after the Mayor issued the statement, a private resort in the City cancelled its contract to host VDARE’s upcoming conference. VDARE alleged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that the City’s statement left the resort with no choice but to cancel the conference and thus: (1) violated VDARE’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association; (2) constituted First Amendment retaliation; and (3) tortiously interfered with VDARE’s contract with the resort. The district court dismissed VDARE’s federal claims for failing to state a claim. After that, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim. VDARE appealed. Finding VDARE did not allege a plausible Fist Amendment claim, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of its case. View "VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs, et al." on Justia Law

The Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act (the “Act”) criminalized certain actions directed at an animal facility without effective consent of the owner of the facility and with intent to damage the enterprise of such facility. The Act provided that consent was not effective if induced through deception. Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”) wished to perform investigations by planting ALDF investigators as employees of animal facilities to document abuse of animals that ALDF would then publicize. Because investigators would be willing to lie about their association with ALDF, ALDF feared its investigations would run afoul of the Act. ALDF therefore took preemptive action and sued the Governor of Kansas, Laura Kelly, and the Attorney General of Kansas, Derek Schmidt, in their official capacities, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the Act violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted both motions in part, determining ALDF had standing to challenge only three subsections of the Act, Title 47, sections 1827(b), (c), and (d) of the Kansas Statutes Annotated. The district court held these provisions were unconstitutional. Thereafter, ALDF moved for a permanent injunction against enforcement of the relevant subsections of the Act. The district court granted its request. Kansas appealed both the order on the cross-motions for summary judgment and the order granting a permanent injunction, arguing the district court erred in holding the relevant subsections of the Act unconstitutional. After its review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act concern speech because they include deception as a possible element and are viewpoint discriminatory because they apply only to persons who intend to damage the enterprise of an animal facility. Because the 'intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility' requirement, is a broad element that does not delineate protected from unprotected speech, Kansas must satisfy strict scrutiny. It has not attempted to do so." View "Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kelly, et al." on Justia Law