Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of drug trafficking and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 121 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. On appeal, defendant argued that she was entitled to a mitigating role reduction under the sentencing guidelines because one of her co-conspirators received that reduction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court’s conclusions were not clearly erroneous based on defendant’s level of involvement and participation in the conspiracy. (EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction and sentence for bank robbery, arguing that the jury had insufficient evidence to find him guilty and that the face mask he had to wear during trial because of the Covid-19 pandemic violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Defendant also objected to the district court’s finding that he warranted a harsher sentence for presenting perjured testimony and in its decision to count two juvenile convictions in his criminal history. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court’s mask requirement was not plain error, that defendant waived his sufficiency of the evidence challenge, and that the district court did not err in its sentencing decisions. (ROVNER and HAMILTON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm as a felon and appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because law enforcement unconstitutionally prolonged a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court’s conclusion that the officer did not prolong the traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff was not clearly erroneous where the evidence supported that the length of the stop was dictated by “diligence and not delay” and, as a result, the discovery of the firearm was made pursuant to a lawful search and seizure. (SYKES and ST. EVE, concurring)

Co-defendants were charged with kidnapping and a jury found both of them guilty. The defendants then appealed, raising a host of issues, including a claim that the district court violated one of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to his choice of counsel, that the federal kidnapping statute was not constitutional, that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and their sentences. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no constitutional violations or errors by the district court. (ST. EVE. a nd JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Plaintiff was found guilty in state court of conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide and of conspiracy to commit arson. After exhausting his state remedies, plaintiff brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court denied relief and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged deficiencies by his trial counsel were prejudicial. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and KOLAR, concurring)

Defendant appealed after she was convicted for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, challenging the district court’s denial of her request to substitute appointed counsel and arguing that she was deprived of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that defendant’s argument failed because she did not have a constitutional right to an attorney that she could not afford. The Seventh Circuit also held that defendant waived her challenge to one condition of supervised release because she did not object to it in the district court. (EASTERBROOK and PRYOR, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a district court order granting the government’s motion to apply cash found in the defendant’s car toward the amount of money he owed in restitution, arguing that the money was confiscated illegally. The Seventh Circuit declined to reach the merits of the appeal, explaining that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because there was no final decision and that the motion was not properly assigned to the magistrate judge. (ROVNER and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)