Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Wendell Grissom, with the assistance of a man he had just met, randomly selected a rural Oklahoma home to burglarize. Upon realizing that the home was occupied by two women and two minor children, Grissom shot his way into the home, killing one woman and seriously injuring the other. After the injured woman was able to escape in Grissom’s own vehicle, Grissom and his accomplice fled on a stolen all-terrain vehicle. Grissom and his accomplice were arrested shortly thereafter. Grissom was tried and convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony, and larceny of a motor vehicle after two or more previous felony convictions. Grissom was sentenced to death for the first degree murder conviction, and sentenced him to lengthy prison sentences for the other convictions. After exhausting his state court remedies through a direct appeal and a single application for state post-conviction relief, Grissom filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. However, the district court granted him a certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to one issue. The Tenth Circuit granted Grissom a COA with respect to two additional issues. Finding no reason to disturb the district court’s order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief. View "Grissom v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Richard Grissom, a prisoner in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a number of state corrections and prison officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights stemming from his lengthy placement in solitary confinement. The district court granted summary judgment against Grissom, and he appealed. Finding that the Prison Officials were entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of Grissom’s confinement there was no clearly established law that would have alerted them that his asserted constitutional rights were being violated, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Grissom v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Matthew Durham appealed his convictions and sentence on four counts for illicit sex with minors in Kenya after travelling there from the United States. He raised eight issues for the Tenth Circuit's review, arguing errors regarding the conduct of trial and the admission of certain evidence all cumulatively affected his Constitutional rights. In addition, he argued 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c), the statute on which the convictions were based, was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Durham because it exceeded Congress’s power under the Foreign Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The Tenth Circuit held that section 2423(c) was constitutional because Congress could rationally conclude that travel abroad followed by illicit sex with a minor, in the aggregate, substantially affected foreign commerce. The Court found no other reversible error and affirmed Durham's convictions. View "United States v. Durham" on Justia Law

Giavanni Miles pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of firearms from a federal firearms licensee. He was sentenced to two concurrent 70-month terms of imprisonment. In his Plea Agreement, Miles “knowingly and voluntarily” waived his right to appeal “any matter in connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence unless it met one of the following criteria: (1) the sentence exceeded the maximum penalty provided in the statute of conviction; (2) the sentence exceeded the applicable advisory guideline range; or (3) the government appealed the sentence[] imposed.” Furthermore, the Agreement provided that “[i]f any of these three criteria apply, the defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an appeal that follows a guilty plea.” Nevertheless, Miles appealed, arguing his appeal waiver was unconscionable and contrary to public policy. Alternatively, Miles argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the negotiation of the appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit granted the government's motion and dismissed this appeal: it fell within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. The Court acknowledged Miles preserved his right to pursue an ineffective-assistance claim in a collateral proceeding. View "United States v. Miles" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma jury convicted and sentenced Gilbert Postelle to death in connection with the brutal killings of four people: over a holiday weekend in 2005, Postelle and two other assailants attacked Donnie Swindle at his home, murdering him and three acquaintances. The raid apparently sprang from the Postelle family’s grudge against Swindle alone. After an unsuccessful appeal and collateral action in state court, Postelle sought federal habeas corpus relief. He alleged the state prosecution violated several of his constitutional rights, including his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Postelle raises three issues: (1) whether he received constitutionally adequate trial counsel; (2) whether he received constitutionally adequate appellate counsel; and (3) whether the unconstitutional presentation of victim-impact evidence at trial prejudiced his defense. He also asked the Tenth Circuit to expand the scope of its review to include several new issues for which he has yet to receive a Certificate of Appealability. Finding no cause to reverse denial of the writ, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court and declined to extend the scope of its review. View "Postelle v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Matthew Sample pled guilty to one count of frauds and swindles and two counts of wire fraud. Sample worked as a licensed investment advisor and registered broker for several large brokerage firms, and was recognized as a top advisor. In 2006, Sample began operating the Vega Opportunity Fund (the “Vega Fund”). One year later, in 2007, he closed the fund after it had lost sixty-five percent of its value. Sample had been diverting funds invested in the Vega Fund for his own personal expenses, and had been providing investors with false account statements and quarterly updates on their purported investments. After closing the Vega Fund, Sample moved from Chicago, Illinois, to Albuquerque, New Mexico. In October of 2009, he began a hedge fund called the Lobo Volatility Fund, LLC (the “Lobo Fund”). In a scheme similar to that perpetrated on investors in the Vega Fund, Sample provided false monthly statements showing appreciation in value, engaged in misleading email correspondence about market strategies, and provided false tax reports to Lobo Fund investors. All the while, Sample diverted a total of $1,086,453.62 from investors for his personal use. Sample was sentenced to a five-year term of probation on a rationale that that such a sentence would allow him to repay his victims. The government appealed the sentence, and the Tenth Circuit concurred with the government that this sentence was unreasonable. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sample" on Justia Law

J.H., a minor represented by his grandfather, claimed a child welfare specialist at the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and two police officers wrongfully seized and questioned him about possible abuse by his father. Because of this conduct, J.H. argued these officials violated the Fourth Amendment, and that two of the three officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment by unduly interfering with J.H’s substantive due process right of familial association. The officials moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that qualified immunity shielded them from liability. The district court denied qualified immunity, and the officials filed an interlocutory appeal. After review, the Tenth Circuit determined the district court was correct that two of the three defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim. But the Court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the officer who merely followed orders by transporting J.H. Furthermore, the Court reversed denial of qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment interference with familial association claim since it was not clearly established that the officials’ conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment. View "Halley v. Huckaby" on Justia Law

Aaron Murphy was a convicted drug dealer and admitted addict. He used his home for drug-related activity. The only issue in his case before the Tenth Circuit was whether that use of his home was enough to warrant an enhancement to his sentence under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12), which increased guideline sentences when drug-related activities are one of the home’s primary, as opposed to incidental, uses. The district judge properly applied the enhancement. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Nikolle Dixon on one count of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization. Before trial, Dixon filed a Notice of Defense of duress, on the theory that she faced an imminent threat of sexual assault from her stepfather and that her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) caused her to believe that no recourse to escape that assault was available except through theft. More specifically, Dixon asked the court to consider her theory of duress under the elements for that defense spelled out in Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction No. 1.36. In response, the government filed a motion in limine, asking the court to reject the defense and to exclude all evidence and testimony relevant to the defense. The court granted the government’s motion. To ensure preservation of her objection, shortly before trial, Dixon’s counsel offered Pattern Instruction 1.36 for the court’s possible presentation to the jury and filed a written proffer of the expert testimony that would be elicited in support of her duress defense. At trial, however, the court maintained its previous ruling, which rejected the defense, and the jury convicted Dixon. On appeal, Dixon asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision rejecting her duress defense, specifically, her related request for a jury instruction. After review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit rejected Dixon's contentions and affirmed her convictions. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

Clay O’Brien Mann’s neighbors invited about a dozen friends to join them late one summer evening for a bonfire at their undeveloped property on an Indian reservation. When this particular gathering continued into the early morning, Mann, who had been drinking, hurled a lit artillery-shell firework in the direction of the partygoers. The firework exploded, chaos ensued, and his neighbors and their guests ran away screaming. Three of them unwittingly retreated in the direction of Mann. He then fired nine shots with a semiautomatic rifle, killing one person and wounding two others. Mann, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and Indian Tribe, was indicted on eight counts, and a jury convicted as to five of them. The district court vacated one of those convictions and sentenced Mann to just over fourteen years in prison. Mann appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. In the course of affirming, the Court noted that but for a “careless error” by the government, Mann might well have received an additional twenty-five years on his sentence for a second 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction. The error was found in Count 8 of the original indictment which charged Mann with "knowingly discharg[ing] and carry[ing] a firearm... during and relation to a crime of violence." The indictment charged “assault resulting in serious bodily injury” in Count 7, not in Count 6. After realizing the government’s mistake, the district court dismissed Count 8 without prejudice, allowing the government to present a corrected section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) charge to another grand jury; the government elected to do so. A second grand jury re-indicted Mann on the corrected charge, which went to trial. However, the district court declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Before a third trial was set to begin. Mann moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing assault resulting in bodily injury, was not a crime of violence under 924(c)(1)(A). The district court agreed and dismissed the indictment; the government timely appealed. The Tenth Circuit determined Mann conceded that “[t]he least of the acts criminalized by section 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(6) was the reckless causing of serious bodily injury.” The Tenth Circuit accepted his concession and concluded that section 113(a)(6) was categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). Because the district court ruled otherwise in dismissing the government’s indictment, its judgment was reversed. View "United States v. Mann" on Justia Law