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

Cretacci, a Coffee County Jail detainee, claims he was injured during a 2015 inmate protest, that the jail failed to distribute essential supplies after that protest, and that he was injured again in 2017 when he did not comply with an order to get on the ground. Cretacci's attorney, Justice, intended to file his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint electronically. On the evening before the limitations period expired on Cretacci’s claims stemming from the 2015 incident, Justice realized he was not admitted to practice law in the district encompassing the jail. The next day, Justice drove to the Winchester courthouse. That courthouse does not have a staffed clerk’s office; documents cannot be filed there. Justice took the complaint to Cretacci at the jail and told him to deliver it to an officer immediately because he could take advantage of the prison mailbox rule, which assesses the timeliness of inmate filings on the day they are handed to jail authorities. Cretacci did so.The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that two claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there were no constitutional violations underlying the remaining claims. The prison mailbox rule does not apply to prisoners who are represented by counsel; that rule is premised on the relaxed procedural requirements traditionally afforded to pro se prisoners who have no choice but to rely on the prison authorities to file their pleadings. View "Cretacci v. Call" on Justia Law

Reels operated a Cleveland drug-trafficking ring and regularly purchased large amounts of heroin, reselling the drug in smaller quantities. Reels and Wheat were social acquaintances. By phone, Wheat told Reels that he had come across “something” in Reels’s “field.” They met at a gas station; Wheat gave Reels a free “sample” of about .3 grams of heroin. Reels had a customer test the sample but ultimately did not purchase any heroin from Wheat. The two had no further interactions.Before that meeting, Reels had unwittingly sold large amounts of drugs to DEA confidential informants. DEA was tracking Reels’s movements and conversations. Weeks after Reels’s interaction with Wheat, officers executed search warrants at Reels’s properties, recovered large amounts of drugs, and charged Reels and others, including Wheat. Wheat was charged with a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin and 40 grams of fentanyl (with a minimum five-year sentence. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846) and with using a communication facility in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The government withdrew the drug-quantity allegation. Convicted on both counts, Wheat received an above-guidelines 27-month sentence.The Sixth Circuit reversed Wheat’s conspiracy conviction. A buyer-seller agreement alone does not establish a section 846 “conspiracy.” The government presented overwhelming evidence that Reels operated a drug distribution scheme but Reels was not on trial. The logic underlying the buyer-seller exception extends to Wheat’s agreement to distribute a sample to Reels. The government did not present additional evidence of a broader agreement between the two to distribute heroin to third parties. The court upheld the “communication facility” conviction. View "United States v. Wheat" on Justia Law

Hanna was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. He exhausted state remedies, then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied in 2009. The Sixth Circuit rejected Hanna’s claim that he was deprived of effective assistance in mitigation because his counsel failed to present a psychologist to testify about organic neurological defects and his troubled childhood. In 2019, Hanna sought leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition and moved to remand his pending petition, arguing that his second-in-time petition is not successive under section 2244(b).The Sixth Circuit denied both requests, rejecting Hanna’s argument that his new claims could not have been raised in his first petition because his previous habeas counsel suffered a conflict of interest. Hanna’s underlying claims of ineffective assistance in mitigation were raised in the previous petition. Hanna seeks to add new evidence. Hanna has also not shown that he meets the requirements of section 2244(b)(2). Hanna does not claim that his new petition relies on a new rule of constitutional law; he seeks an evidentiary hearing to prove certain facts and all of his claims relate to trial counsel’s representation in mitigation. Mitigation evidence categorically does not meet section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii)’s requirement that the new facts establish actual innocence. In addition, Hanna’s claims were procedurally defaulted or have been adjudicated in unchallenged state court decisions. View "In re Hanna" on Justia Law

The Laniers were charged with a scheme to fraudulently obtain government contracts. During deliberations, a juror contacted assistant district attorney Nelson—a social acquaintance, not involved with the Laniers's case. Nelson informed the district judge that Juror 11 called her and said that there was a “problem” with the deliberations. No juror alerted court personnel to any problems. Convicted, the Laniers unsuccessfully requested to interview the jurors and moved for a mistrial. No one interviewed the jurors nor questioned Nelson in open court. The Sixth Circuit remanded for a Remmer hearing in 2017.On remand, the district court summoned the jurors and Nelson, ordering them not to discuss or research the case. Juror 11 nonetheless texted Nelson, suggesting that the juror had researched the case online. Nelson reported the texts to the district judge, who failed to notify the Laniers but ordered Juror 11 to preserve her texts and web-browsing history. Weeks later, the court ordered Juror 11 to turn over her phone and laptop and asked his IT staffer and law clerk to examine the devices. They discovered that the web-browsing data had been deleted. The Laniers unsuccessfully sought a full forensic exam. After Sixth Circuit intervention, the court allowed the Laniers’ expert to forensically examine the devices. Juror 11 revealed that she had discarded her phone months earlier; any potentially deleted texts and web-browsing data are unrecoverable.The district court denied the Laniers’ motions for a new trial. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Laniers were deprived of a “meaningful opportunity” to demonstrate juror bias and are entitled to a new trial to be held before another district judge. View "United States v. Lanier" on Justia Law

Small and Johnson were indicted for aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), (c). Spoon, age 73, testified that she was alone when she noticed a black Chevrolet Malibu pull into her driveway. Small and Johnson ran into her Tennessee home, held Spoon at gunpoint, bound her feet and hands together, and took Spoon’s valuables. Spoon was captive for 20-25 minutes before they left. Spoon freed herself and called the authorities. Mercer County, West Virginia Deputy Addair, having received reports regarding similar home invasions and an anonymous tip that the defendants were driving a black sedan with an out-of-state registration, obtained surveillance footage of Small at a pawnshop. Small had an active Tennessee arrest warrant. Police located the Chevrolet in West Virginia and arrested Small. Johnson fled in a truck, which Small had purchased in Tennessee. Days later, police arrested Johnson.During deliberations, the jury asked the court for definitions of the terms “confined,” “seized,” and “abducted.” The court provided the dictionary definitions. Convicted, Small was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment and Johnson to 300 months’ imprisonment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, to the court’s advice to the jury, and to the sentences. Although the defendants did not transport the victim across state lines, sufficient evidence proves that they used a rental car to cross state lines, travel to Spoon’s home, and escape. A reasonable jury could conclude that the interstate commerce element is met. View "United States v. Small" on Justia Law

Police officers pulled over the vehicle in which Brooks was riding for a seatbelt violation. The officers approached, smelled marijuana, and saw Brooks making a “stuffing motion” under his seat. The police found a gun partially hidden there. After a jury convicted Brooks of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the lone African-American juror emailed the court that the other jurors had pressured her into a guilty verdict.On appeal, Brooks claimed that the stop and search of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment, that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence that he “possessed” a gun, and that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to investigate the racial biases of the other jurors.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Brooks’s conviction and 66-month sentence. The number of officers who conducted the traffic stop did not affect whether it was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. The felon-in-possession statute does not require a defendant to control a gun for any significant period of time. Peña-Rodriguez does not permit an evidentiary hearing to impeach a jury verdict even when no jurors made race-based statements. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

During the early morning hours of October 20, 2017, McShann was asleep in the driver’s seat of a locked, running car with his right hand resting on a pistol in his lap and music blaring from the car stereo. Officers, responding to a complaint, determined that the car was registered to a woman whom they were unable to contact. Seconds after officers roused him from sleep, McShann stopped complying with their orders that he keep his hands up and away from the gun. He grabbed the gun and swung it toward the driver-side door, where two officers were positioned. Fearing for their safety and that of their fellow officers, the officers opened fire, killing McShann. After the shooting, the officers immediately called for medical assistance and attempted first aid.The district court concluded the use of deadly force was reasonable and granted the officers summary judgment on excessive force claims, 42 U.S.C. 1983, by McShann’s estate. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that “[t]he lack of damage to the gun provides clear evidence that Mr. McShann was not holding the gun when he was shot in the hand” did not create a genuine issue of material fact. Such speculation is not enough to controvert consistent officer testimony. View "Jordan v. Howard" on Justia Law

In 2015, Sherwood pleaded guilty to transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and possessing child pornography and received a below-Guidelines sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. In 2020, Sherwood moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), asserting that the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with his age and medical conditions together constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed in favor of release. The district court denied Sherwood’s motion, stating: “[Sherwood] has failed to demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community. Not only was he convicted of possession of child pornography, but he was convicted of transportation as well.”The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. Following enactment of the First Step Act, the policy statement in U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 is no longer an independent basis upon which a court may deny a defendant-filed motion for release. Because Sherwood was denied relief exclusively due to his failure to satisfy section 1B1.13(2)’s requirement that a defendant not be a danger to the community, the district court must apply the remaining section 3582(c)(1)(A) factors. On remand, the court may consider Sherwood’s history and characteristics, including his propensity to be a danger to the community, and the nature and circumstances of his offense. View "United States v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

In 2017, Quintanilla pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and illegally reentering the U.S. after having been removed subsequent to a felony conviction. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and did not appeal. In April 2020, Quintanilla sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). Court-appointed counsel asserted that Quintanilla has underlying medical conditions that put him at high risk, including diabetes, obesity, and hypertension; that his facility, FCI Oakdale, was among those hardest hit by the pandemic; and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of release. The government argued that he had not demonstrated sufficiently extraordinary and compelling reasons and that he is a danger to the community, so his release would be inconsistent with section 3553(a).The district court denied the motion, stating on a form order that it had considered the applicable section 3553(a) factors and policy statements and conducted a “complete review” of the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Quintanilla’s request for compassionate release and the denial thereof reflects a “conceptually simple” matter suitable to resolution via a form order; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Quintanilla’s motion. View "United States v. Quintanilla-Navarro" on Justia Law

In 1975, schoolteacher and drug dealer Ingram was robbed and shot dead in her Detroit home. Watkins’s 20-year-old high school classmate, Herndon, testified that he and Watkins robbed and murdered Ingram together. Detroit Evidence Technician Badaczewski testified that a hair found on Ingram’s clothing matched Watkins's hair sample. After Watkins’s conviction, Herndon repeatedly recanted. In sworn affidavits, letters, and testimony, Herndon attested that Wayne County Prosecutor Healy and Detective Schwartz threatened to charge him with Ingram’s murder and another murder if Herndon did not implicate Watkins and testify at Watkins’s trial. Watkins’s efforts to overturn his conviction had no success for four decades.In 2017, Watkins presented new evidence that Badaczewski’s hair analysis methods were seriously flawed. The Michigan court dismissed the case against Watkins without prejudice. Months later, Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against Healy, Schwartz's estate, Badaczewski, and Detroit.The district court denied Healy’s motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider most of Healy’s arguments but held that Healy is not entitled to absolute immunity and that Healy forfeited the issue of qualified immunity at this stage. Even considering Healy’s equitable contentions that it would not be “fair” to hold him to today’s standards, the 1975-76 standards of prosecutorial immunity were the same: a prosecutor engaged in certain investigative activities enjoys, not the absolute immunity associated with the judicial process, but only a good-faith defense comparable to the policeman’s.” View "Watkins v. Healy" on Justia Law