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

Mirza called Detective Dare, told Dare that Brown was a drug dealer, and agreed to set up controlled purchases. The first controlled buy occurred in September 2005. Brown was arrested in January 2006, waived his Miranda rights, and admitted in writing that he sold cocaine to Mirza four times. Brown was released from custody. Within weeks, the state issued a criminal complaint and secured an arrest warrant. Brown was unaware of these developments until he was arrested in September 2007, pursuant to an unrelated warrant, and was arraigned. Brown was tried in February 2008. Mirza’s defense theory was that he simply permitted Mirza to use his scale to weigh cocaine that Mirza already possessed. Brown was convicted. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Brown sought relief from judgment, arguing that he was denied due process when exculpatory audio recordings were lost during the 20-month delay between his arrest and trial, and speedy trial violations. State courts denied relief, holding that Brown had not demonstrated good cause for failure to raise the issues on direct appeal. A federal district court then rejected Brown’s claims, applying the Barker v. Wingo, factors, to determine that no speedy-trial violation occurred. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that although the delay exceeded a year, the state was at most negligent, Brown failed to assert the right after he became aware of the charges, and, given the overwhelming evidence against him, Brown had not shown prejudice. View "Brown v. Romanowski" on Justia Law

In Wayne County, Michigan, Grundy was Assistant County Executive; Executive Director of HealthChoice, a municipal corporation chartered to promote the health and welfare of area residents; and Division Director of the County’s Patient Care Management System, which administered its programs through ProCare Plus. Grundy’s friend, Griffin, formed businesses to provide advertising and electronic medical records services to HealthChoice and ProCare Plus. Griffin would inflate the price and “kickback” the excess to Grundy. According to the government, the benefit to Grundy totaled $1,381,766. He pleaded guilty to honest services wire fraud arising from one of his three schemes, 18 U.S.C. 1343 & 1346, waiving the right to appeal if “the sentence imposed does not exceed the 210-month maximum allowed by” the agreement, which was the top end of the Guidelines range proposed by the government based on the loss associated with his conduct. Grundy proposed a range of 37-46 months, arguing that the loss amount associated with his offense of conviction was $400,000. The court imposed a 90-month term. The government obtained a restitution order for $1,380,767; Grundy argued that restitution should be capped at the $400,000 associated with the offense of conviction. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal, holding that the waiver applied to the restitution order. View "United States v. Michael Grundy" on Justia Law

The Battle Creek Police Department obtained a warrant to search a residence, based on evidence from a trash pull and from a confidential informant. The Emergency Response Team was involved due to the subject’s (Jones) criminal history, gang affiliations, possession of firearms, and possible possession of cocaine and heroin. Jones and Brown were detained outside. Officer Klein testified that, approaching the door, he could see dogs barking aggressively and “jumping.” The dogs, owned by Brown, were pit bulls, weighing about 97 pounds and 53 pounds. Klein testified that he “did not feel [the officers] could safely clear the basement with those dogs down there.” The officers shot and killed the dogs. Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging unconstitutional seizure of the dogs, unreasonable forced entry, and that the city was liable under “Monell” because the Department failed to provide training to address the known risk of constitutional violations arising from dog shootings. The court dismissed, finding no genuine issue of material fact on the Fourth Amendment claims or that an inadequate training policy caused the alleged constitutional violations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the officers acted reasonably and that there was no history of “needless killing of animals in the course of searches in Battle Creek.” View "Brown v. Battle Creek Police Department" on Justia Law

In April 1987, witnesses saw Middlebrooks and Brewington chase Majors, a 14-year-old black male. The next day, Majors’ body was found near where that incident had occurred. Majors had been tortured. Brewington led police to a bloodstained knife and to Middlebrooks, who resisted arrest. Middlebrooks gave a video-taped statement. He admitted that he stabbed Majors twice, but depicted Brewington as the primary perpetrator. A jury convicted Middlebrooks of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced him to death. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld Middlebrooks’s convictions but vacated the death sentence. Evidence presented on remand indicated that Majors was small for his age, a good student, not violent, and not armed. Middlebrooks was described as a member of the KKK, who “hated niggers.” Middlebrooks’ relatives described his childhood as involving sexual abuse and neglect. There was testimony that Middlebrooks has severe mental illness and organic brain impairment. The jury found the murder “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,’” and that this outweighed any mitigating factors. Middlebrooks was resentenced to death. The sentence was affirmed. His petition for state post-conviction relief was unsuccessful. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of Middlebrooks’s federal habeas petition. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated in light its 2012 decision, Martinez v. Ryan. On remand, the district court again denied Middlebrooks’s petition, finding his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims not “substantial” under Martinez and not warranting an evidentiary hearing or habeas relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Middlebrooks’s claims were rejected on the merits in state court. View "Middlebrooks v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Twenty years ago, Charles was convicted of drug and firearm offenses, including conspiracy to distribute and unlawful distribution of crack cocaine, 18 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. 846. The presentence report found that his total offense level was 38 points, due to the quantity of crack cocaine (216 grams), and two-point (each) obstruction of justice and firearm enhancements; added that Charles appeared to be a career offender and an armed career criminal; and listed a sentencing range of 360 months to life. Charles objected to the amount of cocaine and the enhancements, but did not object to classification as a career offender or an armed career criminal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a 420-month sentence. Ten years later, the Sentencing Commission retroactively amended the sentencing guidelines to lessen the disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses, reducing the range otherwise applicable to Charles’ drug crimes. Charles moved for a sentencing reduction, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In 2010, before the court acted on that motion, Congress again retroactively lowered the guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. Charles filed a second motion. In 2014, the court reduced his sentence to 292 months. On the government’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. In his direct appeal, the court had affirmed that Charles was a career criminal, so that the amendments did not reduce his guidelines range. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

In 1995, Bryan was convicted of attempted robbery. After being paroled in 1998, Bryan was indicted for theft. Arrest warrants issued. In 2000, when Bryan stopped at a gas station, officer Leon pulled behind him, saw that Bryan’s temporary tag had been altered, and took Bryan’s driver’s license to run a check. When Leon radioed the police station, Bryan shot the officer in the face. Officer Leon died instantly. Bryan fled. Niedhammer, who owned a private security agency, heard the shooting, saw the officer lying on the ground. and saw a white Pontiac Grand Prix “erratically leave the gas station almost running into people.” Niedhammer activated his siren and lights and gave chase. Twice, Bryan stopped his car, got out, and fired at Niedhammer. Both times Niedhammer returned fire. Eventually, Bryan lost control, crashed, fled on foot, and threw his handgun into a dumpster. He was arrested that same day. A jury convicted Bryan of aggravated murder and attempted murder with firearm specifications and death-penalty specifications, plus carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm as a convicted felon, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced Bryan to death and 33½ years. Bryan unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal and in state post-conviction proceedings. Bryan timely sought federal habeas relief with 16 claims. The court granted relief on his Batson claim. The Sixth Circuit remanded for dismissal. The district court correctly denied claims concerning: specific jurors, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, lethal injection, and an allegedly unconstitutional death-penalty scheme. The court incorrectly granted relief on the Batson claim, failing to properly defer to the state court’s ruling. View "Bryan v. Bobby" on Justia Law

Defendant, a 32-year-old black man, has prior state court convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon, resisting arrest, and possession of a prohibited weapon. In 2014, Defendant was arrested by Memphis Police for possession of an assault rifle. He was convicted of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Sixth Circuit vacated, reversing denial of a “Batson” challenge. During voir dire, the government used peremptory strikes on five prospective jurors—all of whom were black. Defendant made a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose. The government justified striking the last of the black prospective jurors, Dandridge, because he had changed jobs four months prior and had eight children; the government was purportedly “concerned about his ability to focus on the case at hand and listen and be attentive in a trial.” The government did not delve deeper into Dandridge’s answers by, for instance, asking about his child care arrangements, or the reasons he changed jobs. A comparative juror analysis shows that the government did not express concerns about the ability of similarly-situated white jurors to focus throughout the trial despite their large number of children and inconsistent work history. View "United States v. Atkins" on Justia Law

Nashville Detectives travelled to the residence where Abernathy lived with his girlfriend, searched the outdoor trash cans, and found: “Marijuana roaches with Marijuana residue inside;” “Several plastic vacuumed packed heat sealed bags consistent to those used to package marijuana for resale containing marijuana residue with T22 markings;” “USPS certified mail receipts addressed to Jimmy Jail Abernathy 5809 Tru Long Ct. Antioch TN;” and mail belonging to Abernathy’s girlfriend. Detective Particelli applied for a warrant, stating in his affidavit: I have received information that the occupants of 5809 Tru Long ... have been and are currently engaging in illegal drug activity. The search revealed large quantities of cash, marijuana, cocaine, and firearms. After the court denied a motion to suppress, Abernathy entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Sixth Circuit reversed denial of the motion to suppress and vacated Abernathy’s conviction. The trial court found Particelli’s statement that he had “received information” false; marijuana roaches and T2-laced plastic bags recovered from the garbage were insufficient to create a fair probability that drugs would be found in Abernathy’s home. View "United States v. Abernathy" on Justia Law

In 1991, Hill crept into Teresa's Cincinnati apartment and removed their six-month-old daughter, Domika. Days later, police found Domika’s body in a vacant lot behind Hill’s house. A neighbor had heard Teresa telling Hill that she was going to court for child support. Hill responded that he would not pay. Two neighbors saw Hill enter the yard of Teresa’s apartment building on the night Domika was taken. Hill did not participate in the search for the child and was “snickering” as Teresa talked to police. Domika was wrapped in a shirt that “looked like” a shirt Hill owned. The baby formula box, in which Domika was found, was like one that Hill’s aunt had placed next to Hill’s garage. Batch numbers on a can from the aunt’s pantry matched batch numbers on the box. A forensic expert testified that the trash bag wrapped around Domika had been directly attached to a trash bag from Hill’s kitchen. On the day Domika’s body was found, a bus driver overheard a young man, crying, telling another, “he could not believe what he had done to a little baby,” and that “he might get the chair.” The driver contacted police and picked Hill out of a photo array. State courts affirmed Hill’s convictions and rejected his petitions for post-conviction relief. Hill filed a federal habeas petition in 1998. In a second amended petition in 2005, Hill asserted aBrady claim in a “sweeping assertion” without identifying any evidence. In 2007, Hill discovered a suppressed police report. In 2012, Hill moved the court to expand the record to include a transcript of Teresa’s grand jury testimony. The district court granted habeas relief. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Hill's Brady claim, filed beyond the one-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), is procedurally barred and lacks merit. View "Hill v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Pryor was charged with conspiring to distribute heroin. Interested persons would call to speak to “Daffy Duck” and negotiate a purchase. “Daffy” would then give a location for the transaction and inform members of the conspiracy. Deputy Shattuck listened in on four telephone calls between “Daffy” and an informant. Following the informant's drug purchase, police watched the residence where the sale occurred. While a search warrant was being drafted, Pryor entered the house. Police observed Pryor through the window as he picked up money, then returned to his car and left. They followed the car until it was stopped for traffic violations. Pryor had a pistol inside his waistband, which was properly licensed; wads of money in his pockets; and, in his car, had a cell phone that rang when the “Daffy” number was dialed. Pryor made 33 phone calls while in jail, which were recorded. Officer Shattuck concluded that Pryor’s voice matched the “Daffy” voice. After additional controlled buys, Pryor was re-arrested and, at a hearing, was uncooperative and asserted “sovereign citizen” status. Citing Pryor’s “bizarre” behavior, the magistrate ordered a competency evaluation. Pryor objected to appointed counsel (Upshaw), was found competent, refused to answer questions, and objected to Upshaw acting on his behalf. At later appearances, Pryor continued to assert his desire to appear in propria persona and contest the court’s jurisdiction but refused to cooperate. Pryor was convicted and sentenced to 235 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding a finding that Pryor had waived his right of self-representation by his behavior, the admission of voice-identification testimony, and sentencing enhancements imposed for Pryor’s possession of a gun. View "United States v. Pryor" on Justia Law