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

Stampe and Loden were charged with conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. Stampe pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government in its case against Loden. Before Stampe’s sentencing, the government dropped Loden’s case after “discover[ing] circumstances apart from evidence of . . . guilt which prevent[ed] . . . moving forward.” The government told Stampe that Loden’s dismissal did not affect its case against her; the dismissal related to inappropriate conduct by a confidential informant. Stampe moved to compel the government to disclose the information that led to the dismissal of Loden’s conspiracy charge or to review that evidence in camera and moved to withdraw from her plea agreement.Relying on government representations both that the informant’s misconduct happened after Stampe’s arrest and that the government had complied with disclosure obligations, the district court denied Stampe’s motions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Even assuming Stampe said enough to trigger Rule 16 or Brady disclosure in the abstract, her arguments fail because of the court’s reliance on the government’s representations that items sought were immaterial. While Stampe believed that she might avoid some prison time because of her putative cooperation in Loden’s case, the plea agreement did not require that possibility; it was not the “principal purpose” of the agreement. View "United States v. Stampe" on Justia Law

Nian worked as a home healthcare mentor for a family with a special-needs child, “SG.” After one visit, SG’s sister, JCG, claimed that Nian entered her room, tried to kiss her, put his hands on her private areas, and then pulled down her leggings and tried to perform oral sex on her. Her mother called the police and took JCG to the hospital. Nian was found guilty of rape by cunnilingus. Nian later sought a new trial, based on an affidavit from a juror, Cox, stating that another juror had introduced into deliberations facts about Nian being from Sierra Leone and having a prior criminal record, which she felt influenced the verdict. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the court excluded Cox’s testimony under Ohio Rule of Evidence 606(B) (aliunde rule) and denied Nian’s request for a new trial. The court stated that it questioned the credibility of the proffered testimony. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of Nian’s petition for habeas relief. it is a constitutional error for a state court to use Ohio’s aliunde rule to exclude evidence of a jury’s consideration of extraneous information. This is not the rare case where the introduction of extraneous information was harmless. View "Nian v. Warden, North Central Correctional Institution" on Justia Law

When the state called Blackwell to testify at Miller's trial for the 1995 murder of Rice, she claimed that she could not remember anything about the day in question. Out of the jury’s presence, the judge sent Blackwell to jail to read statements that she had given to police shortly after the murder and notes that Miller’s investigator took when speaking with her. Blackwell returned to court and testified, consistently with her police statement, that the morning after the murder, she saw Miller in a car that looked like Rice’s and that Miller told her that Rice was dead before anyone else could have known. During cross-examination, Miller’s attorney asked Blackwell how she had regained her memory. Blackwell replied: “I don’t want to go to jail.”The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a new trial. Blackwell was unavailable. Rather than allow all of Blackwell’s testimony to be read to the jury, the court carved “any reference of incarceration or intimidation.” The jury never heard Blackwell’s statement that she did not want to go to jail. The rest of the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, who had credibility problems. Convicted, Miller received a life sentence. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Miller’s claim that the court erred in admitting Blackwell’s redacted testimony.The Sixth Circuit reversed a denial of habeas corpus relief. Confrontation of an adverse witness necessarily entails that the trier of fact be allowed to learn the material results of that confrontation. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' application of Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisprudence was objectively unreasonable. View "Miller v. Genovese" on Justia Law

The Shelby County Sheriff’s Department dispatcher alerted three deputies that a 911 caller, Nancy Lewellyn, had told the dispatcher that she was suicidal, that she had a gun (possibly a .45 caliber pistol), and that she would kill anyone who came to her residence. Each squad car was equipped with a dashboard camera, which recorded video, sound, and the time of day. At 12:14 p.m., Lewellyn walked outside and turned toward her driveway, carrying in her right hand a BB handgun that resembled a .45 caliber pistol. She began to raise that handgun. The deputies yelled to her then fired shots. Lewellyn continued walking with her right arm extended and the pistol pointing toward her car, Lewellyn leaned on its hood briefly, then turned back toward the house. The shooting continued. Llewellyn collapsed; 11 seconds had elapsed since she exited her house. Ten shots were fired. Lewellyn had deposited the handgun on the sedan’s hood before turning back. The deputies approached and discovered that she was unarmed. Lewellyn died at the scene.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court rejected the deputies’ claims of qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit vacated. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than in hindsight. The “facts and circumstances” support the deputies’ contention that reasonable officers would perceive that Lewellyn posed an immediate threat to their safety. View "Cunningham v. Shelby County" on Justia Law

On several occasions, an undercover officer purchased methamphetamine from Walker. Booker accompanied Walker to one of these sales, handed the officer Walker’s drugs, told the officer that he could offer methamphetamine at a better price, and gave the officer his cell phone number. During the next month, Booker sold methamphetamine to the officer on three separate occasions. At a fourth planned sale, Booker noticed police cars at the planned meeting location and fled, first by car, with a passenger and her two-year-old daughter, and then on foot. Police eventually apprehended him and dialed the phone number that was used to arrange sales with the undercover officer. Booker’s cell phone rang.Booker pled guilty to one count of distributing methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); three counts were dismissed. The district court sentenced Booker as a career offender based on his prior state convictions for unarmed robbery and for the “deliver[y]/manufacture” of a controlled substance, which made his advisory Guidelines range 188-235 months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced Booker to 188 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding Booker’s classification as a career offender. The district court “manifestly designed” Booker's supervised release “conditions to steer Booker away from his prior criminal activities and to facilitate effective monitoring by his probation officer.” View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

The IRS began a criminal investigation of Gaetano, who owns Michigan cannabis dispensaries. Portal 42, a software company that provides the cannabis industry with point-of-sale systems, confirmed that Gaetano was a client. Agents served a summons, ordering Portal 42 to produce records “and other data relating to the tax liability or the collection of the tax liability or for the purpose of inquiring into any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws concerning [Gaetano] for the periods shown.” The IRS did not notify Gaetano about the summons. Portal 42 sent the IRS an email with a hyperlink to the requested records. An IRS computer specialist copied the documents. None of the personnel in the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division have viewed the records.Gaetano filed a petition under 26 U.S.C. 7609, seeking to quash the summons, arguing that the IRS should have notified Gaetano about the summons and that it was issued in bad faith. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Gaetano lacked standing. Section 7609 waives the government’s sovereign immunity to allow taxpayers to bring an action to quash certain third-party IRS summonses. An exception applies because the summons here was issued by an IRS criminal investigator “in connection” with an IRS criminal investigation and the summoned party is not a third-party recordkeeper. Without a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot obtain. View "Gaetano v. United States" on Justia Law

At 1:20 a.m., Harden, an African-American, went to buy beer at a Thornton store, where a uniformed Heritage Creek police officer, Hillman, provided security. The clerk told Harden, “I think you’ve had too much to drink already.” Harden left but returned. Hillman allegedly slammed him down onto the floor. Harden requested medical attention and was transported to the hospital, where he was cited for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication, then released. The charges were dismissed after Hillman failed to appear.Harden's claims against Thornton and Heritage Creek were dismissed. Harden’s excessive force claim against Hillman was rejected by a jury. Harden first unsuccessfully sought a new trial based on the court’s refusal to order the Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas and on Hillman’s counsel allegedly making improper arguments to the jury.Harden’s counsel obtained permission to contact a juror post-trial. That juror claimed that Harden did not get a fair trial because of his race and that another juror concealed from the judge that he was related to a police officer. The court denied Harden’s second motion for a new trial.The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Harden’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause and the order denying Harden’s first motion for a new trial but vacated the denial of the second motion. The juror’s affidavit showed that jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict. View "Harden v. Hillman" on Justia Law

In 2005, Pouncy opted to represent himself and was convicted of four counts of carjacking, four counts of armed robbery, and three firearm counts. He was sentenced to 586-824 months' imprisonment. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Pouncy’s argument that he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. In 2013, Pouncy filed a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing that the state courts erred in allowing him to represent himself. In 2016, the district court granted a conditional writ. While Michigan's appeal proceeded, the district court released Pouncy on bond. After his release, Pouncy tried to enter the chambers of the judge who presided over his trial; later Michigan charged him with possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The court revoked bail.In 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief and remanded for consideration of Pouncy’s other claims. A cell phone was subsequently found in Pouncy’s cell, containing messages, suggesting that Pouncy had paid $10,000 to secure false testimony in his federal habeas proceeding. The district court declined to dismiss the petition in full. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pouncy unsuccessfully sought release on bond pending review of his petition. When the pandemic worsened, Pouncy unsuccessfully asked for bail again. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court reasonably concluded that the “interests of justice” did not support Pouncy’s release, given the “looming reality” of his conduct, which included time-consuming collateral litigation. View "Pouncy v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Memphis Officers suspected Reed of distributing marijuana. Reed had prior drug convictions. Detective Evans filed affidavits seeking search warrants for OK Tire, Orchi Road, and Bond Road. At OK Tire, owned by Reed's girlfriend, a reliable confidential informant had made a controlled buy from Reed and had seen Reed “selling and storing marijuana.” Evans had surveilled the couple leaving their home (Bond Road) and traveling to OK. Each had keys to the business. Reed’s mother lived on Orchi Road. Reed’s driver’s license listed it; Evans had watched the informant make a controlled buy from Reed there. Evans sought a warrant to search Bond Road for financial records and drug proceeds (not for drugs).A state judge issued three search warrants. Officers seized nothing from OK and only baggies and a digital scale from Orchi Road. The search at Bond Road uncovered guns, ammunition, 18.7 grams of marijuana, 2.1 grams of THC wax, and $5,636 in cash. Reed confessed that the guns and drugs were his and that he had been selling marijuana. He later successfully moved to suppress the evidence obtained from at Bond Road, including his statements.The Sixth Circuit reversed, declining to address the constitutional question of whether, when officers have probable cause to arrest a suspect, they need additional evidence of a “nexus” between the drug dealing and the dealer’s home in order to search that home. Even when a search violates the Fourth Amendment, courts should not suppress evidence if the police reasonably relied on a judge’s decision that probable cause justified a warrant. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

In March 2012, Edington and his father agreed Edington would apply for a Farm Services Agency (FSA) farm operating loan and list assets belonging to his father as collateral. Edington listed as collateral many assets he did not own. In 2012, Edington also presented documents to the FSA falsely claiming he had purchased cattle from his friend. Edington defaulted on the loans; his father died. Edington did not inherit the assets listed in the security agreement. In 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed felony charges for conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. 1014, which prohibits: “knowingly make[] a false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the” FSA. The district court dismissed, citing the five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. 3282(a).The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded; 18 U.S.C. 3293(1) expressly provides a 10-year limitations period for certain offenses including “a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate . . . section . . . 1014.” Section 3293 extends the statute of limitations from five to 10 years for certain crimes including a violation of and conspiracy to violate section 1014. The most recent alleged overt acts listed in the information occurred in 2012; the charges were timely. View "United States v. Edington" on Justia Law