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

Williams and another man armed with a rifle forced the occupants out of a vehicle. Williams fled to another vehicle driven by a getaway driver; his accomplice drove off in the victims' vehicle. Later that morning, Williams and a juvenile carrying an AR-15 entered a credit union and yelled that it was a robbery. When a security guard drew his weapon, the two fled. Police arrested them after a chase; Hill, their driver, was also arrested. Williams and Hill were charged with the attempted armed robbery of a credit union and with brandishing a firearm during and in relation to that attempted armed robbery. Williams was also charged with carjacking and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to that carjacking. Williams pleaded guilty to all four counts and was sentenced to 205 months' imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Williams’s arguments that the district court violated Federal Rule 11 because the plea colloquy failed to advise him as to the accomplice element of the crime and failed to provide a factual basis for the dangerous weapon element. Because aiding and abetting is a theory of liability embodied in every federal indictment, whether specifically charged or not, the court was not required to advise Williams about accomplice liability. The prosecutor, at the court’s direction, read the elements for attempted armed credit union robbery, which were also set out in the plea agreement. Williams affirmed that these elements matched his behavior. The court confirmed that Williams had read the plea agreement and discussed it with counsel. The court directed the prosecutor to summarize the factual basis for Williams’s guilty pleas. Williams agreed that this summary accurately reflected his behavior; the summary provided a sufficient factual basis for the dangerous-weapon element of attempted armed credit union robbery. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Officers executed three search warrants as part of a Lexington, Kentucky drug-trafficking investigation—one at Salas’s residence, one at Pedroza’s residence, and one at a trailer that the two men used for construction work. At Salas’s home, officers discovered Barron in an upstairs bedroom. Both Pedroza and Barron were indicted for drug-related crimes. Barron pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum, 10 years in prison. Pedroza was found guilty by a jury of drug and firearm charges. Their cases were consolidated on appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Pedroza’s conviction. The district court properly instructed the jury regarding dual-role testimony by a detective who offered fact-witness testimony regarding the investigation and expert-witness testimony identifying a substance as cocaine without a laboratory result. The court stated that “several law enforcement officers . . . testified to both facts and opinions” and cautioned the jury to give “[e]ach type of testimony . . . proper weight.” Because Barron is entitled to safety-valve relief, U.S.S.G. 5C1.2 and 2D1.1(b)(17), the court vacated his sentence and remanded. Barron did not constructively possess the firearm found in the home and cooperated with the government. View "United States v. Pedroza" on Justia Law

Officer Patterson stopped a vehicle with four passengers, including a seven-year-old. Another passenger, Owen, exited the vehicle holding a bag and attempted to flee. Patterson gave chase. Owen returned to the vehicle, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at Patterson. Patterson, who was not hit, tased Owen. Owen dropped the shotgun and attempted to flee, dropping the bag. Patterson arrested Owen and recovered the bag. An officer, trained in methamphetamine investigations, recognizing the dangers presented by the collection of items, took measures to reduce the risk of explosion. A methamphetamine task force neutralized the remaining items. Owen pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine and discharging a firearm during and in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. Owen’s base offense level was increased to 30 under USSG 2D1.1(b)(14)(D) because his methamphetamine offense created a “substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor,” then adjusted downward for accepting responsibility. His Guidelines range was 250 -282 months of imprisonment. The court determined that the quantity of chemicals was low but highly dangerous, with the potential for explosion, and that loosely storing those chemicals together and transporting them was an inherently dangerous endeavor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Owen’s 250-month sentence, noting that any combustion would have been devastating to the minor, if not fatal. On balance, the likelihood of substantial injury to the child should the equipment combust constitutes a “substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor.” View "United States v. Owen" on Justia Law

In 2007, 18-year-old Bennett lived with her boyfriend, Benson, who physically and emotionally abused Bennett. For a time, Stephanie McClure stayed at their apartment. When she moved out, McClure took Benson’s video game console and other items. Benson began telling Bennett and their friends about his plans to shoot and kill McClure. With Bennett and another friend in the car, Benson shot McClure. Bennett was charged with first-degree murder on a theory of aiding and abetting because she had directed Benson to McClure’s trailer park, pointed her out, and then driven the getaway car. She and Benson were tried jointly, before separate juries. Both attorneys adopted a feeble theory of defense: that the police and prosecutor singlemindedly focused on Benson and failed to investigate other potential suspects. Bennett’s attorney did not highlight Bennett’s behavior that suggested she lacked the requisite mens rea: that she alerted the police about the missing items, that Bennett unnecessarily involved another in the supposed plot, and that she displayed extreme emotional distress after hearing the gunshots. Bennett’s counsel did not proffer a single defense witness. Bennett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bennett’s petition for habeas relief. Bennett did not initially raise her claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Bennett did not meet the high standard required to establish constitutionally ineffective assistance by establishing that she was prejudiced by deficient representation View "Bennett v. Brewer" on Justia Law

White was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. As White was preparing for trial, his attorney, Armengau, was indicted by the same prosecutor’s office for serious felony offenses related to sexual misconduct, rape, and kidnapping involving his clients, relatives of his clients, and employees. White alleges that his attorney, the prosecution, and the court all failed to inform him about Armengau’s indictment or issues it might have raised regarding his representation. With newfound knowledge after his conviction, and with different counsel, White appealed, arguing constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ohio court denied White’s appeal, declining to consider his ineffective-assistance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to allow the court to fully adjudicate the merits. The court issued its ruling almost four months after the deadline for White to file a post-conviction motion in state court. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. White filed a pro se federal habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit vacated a denial of relief. Due to procedural hurdles in state court and because White did not have the aid of an attorney in his post-conviction proceedings, he had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ineffective-assistance claim. Based on Supreme Court precedent, White has cause to overcome his default. View "White v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution" on Justia Law

In 2010, Byrd, who had no criminal record, suggested that he and his girlfriend (Atkinson) rob Joiner at a bank ATM. Byrd provided the gun, but at the last minute tried to cancel the plan. Atkinson, armed, approached Joiner and demanded his money. Joiner resisted and, in a struggle with Atkinson, the gun went off. Joiner suffered a fatal wound. Atkinson returned to the car and Byrd drove away. Byrd turned himself in. The two were charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, assault with intent to rob while armed, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. Byrd was charged on a theory of aiding and abetting and, under Michigan law, was subject to the same penalties as the principal. Atkinson pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a sentence of 30-50 years in exchange for providing testimony in Byrd’s trial. Byrd’s attorney never initiated plea negotiations. Byrd, sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that his counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of the opportunity to secure a plea deal. He argued that, based on an egregious misunderstanding of the law, his attorney conveyed to the prosecutor an unwillingness to consider a plea and conveyed to Byrd an assurance of acquittal. The Sixth Circuit granted relief, finding that Byrd’s counsel was deficient and that it is reasonably probable that, absent this incompetency, Byrd would have negotiated a better outcome. View "Byrd v. Skipper" on Justia Law

Federal prosecutors asked the district court for permission to withhold classified information from defense counsel for Asgari, an Iranian scientist charged with theft of trade secrets. Applying the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980, 18 U.S.C. app.3 1, the district court reviewed the information and concluded that none of it would help Asgari and granted the government’s motion. Asgari moved for reconsideration on the ground his defense counsel had a top-level security clearance. The court ordered the information’s disclosure to counsel. The Sixth Circuit reversed, first holding that it had jurisdiction. The Act permits the government to seek an interlocutory appeal of a district court order “authorizing the disclosure of classified information.” Nothing in the Act suggests that defense counsel has a role to play when the district court assesses the relevance or helpfulness of the classified information. Although the district court expressed it had trouble, on reconsideration, deciding whether the information was relevant to Asgari’s defense, the Act vests the district court alone with the responsibility to make the decision. View "United States v. Asgari" on Justia Law

Beane, formerly an Air Force electrical engineer, became involved in a conspiracy theory that the government creates for each citizen a "straw man" and that the Federal Reserve holds in trust that citizen’s inherent “unlimited value.” Proponents believe that by filing the correct paperwork, they can use those funds. Beane, deeply in debt, became involved with Tucci-Jarraf, a former attorney who ran a website, contributed to talk shows, and produced faux-legal documents that purported to allow individuals to access their secret accounts. Beane found a Facebook video that purported to teach viewers how to access their accounts; it actually taught them how to commit wire fraud by exploiting a deficiency in the “Automated Clearing House” bank network. With Tucci-Jarraf's support, Beane logged onto his bank’s website, followed those instructions, and made fraudulent payments on his debts and bought $31 million in certificates of deposit with Federal Reserve funds. He started cashing the certificates and spending money. A bank froze his account. Tucci-Jarraf advised Beane to place his new assets in trust; she prepared pseudo-legal documents and made calls. Agents arrested Beane as he was driving off the dealership lot in a new motor home. Officers arrested Tucci-Jarraf in Washington, D.C., where she was requesting a meeting with the President. Beane and Tucci-Jarraf filed multiple frivolous motions and asked to represent themselves. The judge concluded that they had knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel but appointed standby counsel. A jury convicted Beane of bank and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and both of conspiracy to commit money laundering, section 1956(h). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court should have forced them to accept counsel. They knowingly and intelligently made their choice; self-lawyering does not require the individual to subscribe to conventional legal strategies or orthodox behavior. View "United States v. Beane" on Justia Law

Rudolph’s son texted Rudolph's ex-husband, Kyle: “[S]he has the .22 out”. Kyle went Rudolph’s home, the two spoke and Rudolph allowed Kyle to take Rudolph’s gun. After Kyle left, Rudolph went to sleep. Around 3:00 A.M., Officer Hodges stopped Kyle for speeding. Kyle admitted he was carrying a gun, explaining that he took it from his ex-wife. Kyle showed Hodges the text from his son and a text from Rudolph saying “goodbye.” The officers let Kyle go but felt obligated to do a wellness check. Two officers went to Rudolph’s home and banged on her doors. Asleep, she did not answer. Officer Hodges told Kyle to call Rudolph. Rudolph answered. Hodges stated that his officers were at the door. Rudolph opened the door. The officers entered without her permission. Rudolph stated that she was not suicidal and generally cooperated. The officers gave her the option of going voluntarily to the hospital or being taken into custody involuntary for a mental-health check. Rudolph says that they grabbed her, slammed her into the wall, and handcuffed her “really tight.” The officers “manhandled” her outside, without shoes, dragging her so that she hurt her ankle. She later needed surgeries to treat that injury. She complained repeatedly about the handcuffs. The hospital had to wait for Rudolph’s blood-alcohol level to go down to perform psychiatric evaluation, then determined that “[Rudolph] is at extremely low risk of self-harm.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity summary judgment on three claims but reversed the denial on Rudolph’s state-law false arrest and imprisonment claims. Although the officers had a reason to show up at Rudolph’s door, a jury could reasonably find that they lacked probable cause to execute this mental-health seizure. The officers violated Rudolph’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force. View "Rudolph v. Babinec" on Justia Law

As a felon in possession of a firearm, Wright had three prior convictions for “serious drug offenses,” and qualified as an armed career criminal. A Maryland district judge accepted his plea and gave him the 15-year minimum sentence. Wright did not dispute his Armed Career Criminal Act status, nor did he appeal. Wright unsuccessfully challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court decided, in Johnson, that ACCA's “residual clause” was unconstitutionally vague. Wright’s argument had nothing to do with Johnson or the residual clause, which did not concern drug offenses. After the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision, Wright was subject to “second or successive” habeas motions limitation, 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). Wright's second habeas corpus petition, filed in the district court where he is imprisoned, was dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In the Sixth Circuit, a federal prisoner who has already filed a section 2255 motion and cannot file another one, cannot use section 2241 to seek relief just because a new Supreme Court case hints his conviction or sentence may be defective. The prisoner must also show that binding adverse precedent (or some greater obstacle) left him with “no reasonable opportunity” to make his argument either when he was convicted and appealed or when he sought postconviction relief. Wright had several opportunities to raise his “Mathis claim,” free of any procedural impediments or hostile precedents. He cannot now use the saving clause to get "another bite at the apple." View "Wright v. Spaulding" on Justia Law