Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in October, 2011
by
After spotting defendant walking at 2:30 a.m. in an area that generates narcotics complaints, an officer ordered him to stop. He complied. Because defendant seemed nervous and was shaking, the officer frisked him and requested permission to search. Defendant agreed and the officer found $1,300 in cash. Defendant's pants had fallen to his thighs and, when the officer pulled out his boxers there was plastic sticking up between his butt cheeks. Defendant tried to run, but officers restrained him and discovered that the plastic contained cocaine. Following his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, defendant appealed the district court's denial of a motion to suppress. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the police seizure of defendant was neither consensual nor based on reasonable and articulable suspicion. The consent given to search was involuntary and did not purge the taint of the illegal seizure.

by
Petitioner was charged with first degree murder. During jury selection, in Michigan state court, defense counsel objected that the prosecution was attempting to exclude black jurors, particularly black men. The trial judge inquired and did not find improper exclusion. During the three-day selection process, defense counsel raised a second Batson challenge and the prosecutor lodged her own objection to peremptory strikes by defense. At the end of selection, the judge stated that any problems caused by failure to reseat jurors that had been peremptorily dismissed had been "cured." Convicted and sentenced to life in prison, petitioner obtained a remand for the Michigan Supreme Court. The conviction was ultimately upheld. The federal district court issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a Batson violation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the only reasonable conclusion, from the transcript, was that the trial court did find that two jurors were improperly excluded. The trial court subsequently failed to satisfy its constitutional obligation under Batson.

by
Defendant, convicted on 11 child-pornography related offenses )18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (d)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1), (a)(5)(B), and (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2257(f)(4)), was sentenced to 16 years in prison followed by eight years of supervised release. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The warrant, which authorized search and seizure of the entire computer server, was not overbroad. In general,if a computer search is limited to a search for evidence explicitly authorized in the warrant, it is reasonable for the executing officers to open the various types of files located in a computer's hard drive in order to determine whether they contain such evidence.The government provided an indexed list of images and files to the defense, six weeks before trial, and complied with Rule 16. Punishing, through multiple offenses, a defendant who funnels child pornography through different websites is consistent with Congress's intent to halt the dissemination of such images and to stop the sexual abuse of children. While noting "troubling" aspects to the rationale, the court affirmed the below-Guidelines sentence.

by
A former police officer, fired in 2004, was found guilty as the primary conspirator on 44 counts, including violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy to deprive another of their civil rights under the color of law), 242 (deprivation of civil rights under the color of law), and 1951 (robbery and extortion under the color of official right interfering with interstate commerce). The charges involved 14 incidents in which defendant arranged for a drug buy or a drug sell (using drugs taken in a previous incident) using a non-officer contact as the front person. As the deal was occurring, defendant or a co-conspirator officer would arrive to make a purported arrest and seize the money and drugs. The participants would then be released. Defendant was sentenced to 255 years in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence under any standard.

by
Debtor owned one parcel in Wisconsin and three in Michigan. Permanently disabled and unemployed, he obtained and defaulted on mortgages. The bank began foreclosure. Debtor sold one Michigan property and gave all proceeds to the bank, which continued its Wisconsin foreclosure. In the Michigan foreclosure, the bank bid the full amount of the loan (likely more than value) and obtained a deed. Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition before the Wisconsin foreclosure sale. The bank filed a proof of claim and motion for relief from the automatic stay to reverse foreclosure on the Michigan property and proceed with the Wisconsin sale. The bankruptcy court concluded that Debtor owed the bank nothing, so there was no reason to continue the Wisconsin foreclosure. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The bank made a unilateral mistake by bidding the entire amount of the debt at the Michigan foreclosure sale. The sale may not be invalidated, absent fraud. The bank is required by Michigan law to pay, or credit, Debtor the full amount of its bid and has been paid in full. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 558, Debtor is entitled to offset the Michigan sale credit bid against the Wisconsin judgment, satisfying the Wisconsin judgment so that Debtor no longer owes the bank any money.

by
Petitioner, a citizen of Trinidad, entered the U.S. at age 16, for a 1987 track competition and remained beyond expiration of her visa. Before college, she was involved in a scheme in which a U.S. citizen, received money to claim to be her husband. Both admitted to the fraud, which petitioner attributed to her coach. No removal action followed. At college she met a U.S. citizen, who became her husband in 1999. They have sons, work, and own a home. Petitioner filed for adjustment of status based on the marriage, but the request was denied under 8 U.S.C. 1154(c) because of her involvement in the fraud. She conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), but contested the fraud allegation. Although she had 10 years of continuous presence, good moral character, and lack of certain criminal convictions, the IJ denied cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(C), finding that petitioner had not shown that removal would cause her husband or children to suffer more hardship than would normally be expected under the circumstances. The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although petitioner is very sympathetic, the explicit preclusion of review of cancellation denials applies.

by
Petitioner was convicted of murder in connection with a homosexual encounter and sentenced to death in the 1980s. Ohio courts denied relief. After several remands by the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that defense counsel's failure to obtain an independent mental health expert and reliance on a presentence investigation report could not be the basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. On remand, the district court denied the writ. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted and petitioner did not establish that the default should be excused do to fault and prejudice. A "Brady" claim concerning evidence of a psychological report indicating that the murder may have occurred as a result of "homophobic panic," failed in light of other evidence.

by
Petitioner, convicted in Michigan of aiding and abetting a carjacking and of receiving and concealing stolen property, exhausted state appeals and sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court (28 U.S.C. 2254). The district court denied. On rehearing, en banc, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction and rejecting an argument that trial counsel was ineffective in refusing to call a co-defendant, who had already pled guilty to the actual carjacking, as a witness.