Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of multiple drug and firearm offenses and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred when it denied his request for a Franks hearing, that the district court improperly permitted the government to constructively amend the indictment by presenting evidence beyond the scope of his firearm possession charge, and that the district court erred by applying three enhancements to his sentence. The Seventh Circuit found no errors and affirmed. (ST. EVE and LEE, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography and served his prison sentence. While he was on supervised release, he violated the conditions of his release and was sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment followed by additional supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged three provisions of the release conditions that were imposed during the revocation sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err when it required him to participate in a computer and internet monitoring program, when it restricted his use of medical marijuana if its use was prohibited by participation in a substance abuse program, and in requiring that he undergo substance abuse treatment despite previously having completed treatment with no subsequent positive tests. (RIPPLE and KOLAR, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of carjacking, brandishing a firearm during a carjacking, and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by admitting prejudicial evidence that he participated in an uncharged shooting on the same day as the carjacking. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err in the admission of evidence and that the government presented ample evidence from which a jury could find him guilty of the charges. (SYKES and SCUDDER, concurring)

Plaintiff was convicted in state court and sentenced to 14 years in prison for aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated domestic battery. After exhausting the state court appellate process, plaintiff filed a habeas petition renewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the Illinois appellate court did not unreasonably apply federal law in finding that plaintiff failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged deficient performance in advising plaintiff regarding the potential sentence he faced and realistic likelihood of prevailing at trial. The Seventh Circuit agreed and affirmed. (RIPPLE and KOLAR, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of child molestation and sentenced to 187 years in prison. The evidence against defendant was primarily the testimony of the victim and during closing argument defendant’s attorney stated that he found the victim to be credible. The state courts of appeal affirmed the conviction and defendant sought federal habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that defendant failed to establish that he suffered prejudice from the attorney’s remark during closing argument. (ST. EVE and SCUDDER, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of drug-distribution, firearm, and financial crimes and was initially sentenced to life in prison plus five years. The district court later vacated that sentenced and imposed a 360-month term of imprisonment and defendant appealed from that sentence, challenging the sentencing guidelines and the court’s calculation of his sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that defendant’s challenges lacked merit. (EASTERBROOK and SCUDDER, concurring)

Defendants were found guilty of conspiring to possess and distribute controlled substances. The defendants appealed, raising a number of issues related to their criminal proceedings including insufficiency of the evidence, a failure to properly instruct the jury using the buyer-seller instruction, and in sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible errors. (EASTERBROOK And SCUDDER, concurring)

Defendant was charged with trafficking a child and other related offenses and midway through his trial the judge declared a mistrial, finding that defendant had failed to give pretrial notice of his first witness’ testimony. Defendant filed a collateral appeal while awaiting re-trial, arguing that a second trial could violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred when it declared a mistrial because defendant did not fail to properly disclose a witness and that, even if there were an error that required corrected, the trial judge did not sufficiently consider reasonable alternatives or the effect of a mistrial on the defendant. (KOLAR and MALDONADO, concurring)