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

Police found Moore dead with a syringe in one hand, his cell phone beside him. Officers obtained a search warrant. The cellphone revealed text messages between Moore and “Joe,” indicating that Joe had delivered drugs to Moore’s address. Officers identified “Joe” through his cellular telephone number, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). Moore’s death had “resulted from a mixture of cocaine and fentanyl toxicity,” consistent with the drugs purchased from Joe Ward. Six months later, officers searched Ward’s curbside trash and found mail addressed to Ward, “loose marihuana, cigar wrappers, and a plastic bag that appeared to contain illicit drugs at one time.” Ward “has an extensive criminal history which includes charges of felony drug possession, trafficking in drugs, and weapons violations.” Based on that information, a magistrate issued a warrant to search Ward’s residence. During the search, officers seized approximately a kilogram of heroin, some cocaine and some hashish, five firearms, ammunition, drug packaging material, a partial bag of syringes, and a digital scale.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the suppression of that evidence. The government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between Ward’s drug-dealing and his home. The “good faith” exception does not apply. Undated charges, without further information, plus the lone trash pull are not probative of whether Ward used his residence to traffic drugs. The affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law

A Michigan jury convicted Stewart of the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Venus. At trial Stewart’s accomplice testified that Stewart persuaded him to help by claiming that Venus was harming the couple’s children and that, if she ended up killing them, Stewart would go on a “rampage” and “go after her family and the lawyers and prosecutors and jury[.]” Stewart moved for a mistrial based on his accomplice’s testimony about what he had said, arguing that its inflammatory nature prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. A state appellate court rejected Stewart’s due-process challenge.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. The state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). A habeas challenge to an evidentiary ruling cannot satisfy section 2254(d)(1) unless the petitioner identifies a Supreme Court case establishing a due process right with regard to the specific kind of evidence at issue. Stewart identifies no Supreme Court holding barring the “specific kind of evidence,” in this case Stewart’s out-of-court statements that allegedly inflamed the jury. The state appellate court reasonably concluded that Spencer’s testimony about Stewart’s statement was not unduly prejudicial. View "Stewart v. Winn" on Justia Law

In 2014, a jury convicted Nassiri of the second-degree murder of his wife. In 2018, Nassiri filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. A magistrate determined that Nassiri’s limitations period expired on February 28, 2018—one day before his petition was submitted. Nassiri’s counsel had not recognized the petition’s untimeliness before submission and did not make any arguments in the petition about why his delay should be excused. The magistrate concluded that equitable tolling was not warranted. Nassiri’s objection to the magistrate’s report was prepared by the same counsel responsible for his untimely filing. Counsel explained that she had used a mechanical device, which wrongly indicated that the deadline was March 1, 2018. Counsel argued that she was “seriously negligent” when she “failed to use an alternative method ... after the Petitioner himself questioned the accuracy" of the deadline.” The district court denied the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A). The court acknowledged that Nassiri’s counsel was “ineffective,” but concluded that her ineffectiveness did not merit tolling because counsel had not “abandoned” Nassiri.The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded to allow Nassiri an opportunity to develop and present his equitable tolling argument anew, while represented by unconflicted counsel. There is some evidence that Nassiri’s attorney did not present the “full picture” of her misconduct to the district court, so jurists of reason could debate whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. View "xNassiri v. Mackie" on Justia Law

Trice entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, reserving the right to challenge the warrant issued to search his apartment. Officers had entered the common area of his apartment building and placed a camera disguised as a smoke detector on the wall across the hallway from the door of his unit. The camera was equipped with a motion detector and set to activate whenever the door to his apartment opened. The camera made several videos of Trice entering and exiting; the information was used in an affidavit in support of the search warrant. Law enforcement executed the warrant and seized drugs and other paraphernalia consistent with distribution.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting his Fourth Amendment arguments as “squarely foreclosed by two lines of authority.” Trice had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment’s unlocked common hallway where the camera recorded the footage. Law enforcement may use video to record what police could have seen from a publicly accessible location. The camera captured nothing beyond the fact of Trice’s entry and exit into the apartment and did not provide law enforcement any information they could not have learned through ordinary visual surveillance. View "United States v. Trice" on Justia Law

Police caught Maya and two accomplices smuggling 50 pounds of marijuana into Kentucky in a BMW transported on a car-hauling truck from another state. When they searched Maya’s home, police found a firearm in his bed near over $20,000 in cash and money orders. Maya admitted to a drug-trafficking conspiracy and to possessing the firearm but denied possessing the gun “in furtherance of” the conspiracy—an offense that triggers an additional five-year prison term, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i). A jury nonetheless convicted Maya of that offense.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A rational jury could conclude that Maya possessed the firearm “in furtherance of” the drug conspiracy based on evidence that he, among other things, kept his firearm near his drug proceeds. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an officer’s testimony that drug dealers use guns for protection because they often have large amounts of cash and cannot rely on the police to protect them, that the gun’s placement under the mattress made it “easily accessible,” and that this location near the money was “consistent with the firearm being used to protect the funds.” View "United States v. Maya" on Justia Law

Carusone was convicted of felony murder exclusively on the theory—as the prosecution repeatedly emphasized in its closing argument at trial—that Carusone “plunged [a] knife into the victim’s heart.” That theory, as the state court of appeals later found, was “plainly discredit[ed]” by medical records that the state admits it wrongfully suppressed before trial. Those undisclosed hospital records contained a doctor’s affidavit that the victim “died as a result of cardiac arrest brought about by the combined effects of multiple drugs and alcohol and by heavy stress and exertion following a physical confrontation.” The state court of appeals denied Carusone relief.The Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief. The state court “plainly misapplied the governing Supreme Court precedent,” in Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley, when it held that the undisclosed evidence does not undermine confidence in the verdict. The reasoning of the court of appeals amounted to speculation that a jury would go further than any expert did, and find that “stress” from the stab wounds was a proximate cause of the victim’s death. View "Carusone v. Warden, North Central Correctional Institution" on Justia Law

While incarcerated for a Kentucky state conviction, Dotson was convicted, in 1999, of federal crimes and sentenced to 322 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to his Kentucky sentence. The following year Dotson, still incarcerated in Kentucky, was convicted in a Georgia state court and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment. In 2004, Kentucky paroled Dotson into custody in Georgia. In 2011, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) declined to designate the Georgia prison as the place where Dotson would serve his federal sentence. Dotson filed an unsuccessful habeas corpus action. In 2019, Georgia released Dotson to federal custody. Dotson sought to have the time he spent in custody in Georgia credited to his federal sentence.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. With respect to the transfer to Georgia, the federal government is permitted to waive its primary jurisdiction in favor of a state. Dotson’s argument that the BOP should have designated Georgia as his place of federal imprisonment is essentially an argument that his federal sentence should run concurrently with his Georgia sentence; 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) authorizes the BOP to designate a federal prisoner’s place of imprisonment, which effectively resolves whether sentences are served concurrently or consecutively; when the federal court is silent, the BOP decides. The BOP properly consulted the federal sentencing judge and considered the other pertinent factors including the seriousness of the offenses and Dotson’s criminal history. View "Dotson v. Kizziah" on Justia Law

Barber pled guilty to conspiring to possess 50 or more grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base with the intent to distribute it, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), 846, and was sentenced to 210 months in prison (his guideline range was 262-327 months). Following enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 2372, and the First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5194. Barber moved for a sentence reduction. The district court declined to reduce Barber’s term of imprisonment but reduced his term of supervised release.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, first finding Barber eligible for resentencing.Eligibility under the First Step Act “turns on the statute of conviction, not a defendant’s specific conduct.” The Act, however, commits the decision of whether to reduce a sentence to the discretion of district courts. Barber never asked the court to consider his post-sentencing conduct and cannot establish plain error. The court need not consider facts that no party enters into the record. Nor has Barber shown any effect on his substantial rights. The district court provided a more than adequate explanation, citing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The court discussed Barber’s three prior felony drug offenses and the large amount of cocaine base involved in his crime, View "United States v. Barber" on Justia Law

Bourquin called the FBI to report a fabricated story, stating that “Raymond,” with whom he had been incarcerated, had described a plot to abduct, rape, sodomize, and set on fire a former federal prosecutor on August 10, 2017. The “hit” came from Bowman, a gang leader, who was serving a life sentence. FBI employees spent several hours transcribing, reviewing, and correcting the transcript of Bourquin's call. FBI agents had Bowman placed into segregation and traveled to interview Bowman, who said he had never heard of B.M. The U.S. Marshals Service deployed deputies to B.M.’s residence to provide 24-hour surveillance. FBI agents traveled to interview Bourquin. After video footage contradicted the story about "Raymond, agents transported Bourquin to a polygraph examiner (three hours away) for a four-hour test that indicated that Bourquin had fabricated his story.Bourquin pleaded guilty to maliciously conveying false information concerning an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate B.M., 18 U.S.C. 844(e). Although the government supplied no accounting of its expenses, the court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A6.1(b)(4), based on the government’s substantial expenditure of funds and imposed a 40-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence. Section 2A6.1(b)(4)(B) requires more, such as a full accounting of expenditures or some accounting of expenditures coupled with facts that allow a sentencing court to reasonably assess the full expenditure of funds required to respond to an offense and whether those funds are substantial. View "United States v. Bourquin" on Justia Law

Garth pled guilty to possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). His sentencing guidelines range was originally 70-87 months’ imprisonment. Garth’s prior Tennessee convictions for aggravated assault and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver triggered the “career-offender enhancement,” which applies when a defendant has more than one prior conviction for either crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, which resulted in a range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a sentence of 110 months’ imprisonment. Garth’s Tennessee conviction for possessing marijuana with intent to deliver counts as a sentence-enhancing controlled-substance offense. View "United States v. Garth" on Justia Law