Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor and traveling across state lines with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of ten years in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s denial of an entrapment instruction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that while drawing the line between a permissible sting operation and entrapment could be difficult this case was “on the easier side of the divide” and held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the issue of entrapment. (ROVNER and HAMILTON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of knowingly making a false oral or written statement on a fact material to a transaction for including false information on firearms transaction records in connection with her purchase of five separate guns. Defendant challenged her conviction, arguing that the prohibition against knowingly falsifying documents when buying a firearm contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) conflicted with the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that an in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment was not required because § 922(a)(6) restricts fraudulent statements, not firearm purchases and that the Second Amendment does not immunize purchasers from knowingly providing misstatements on firearm transaction records. (BRENNAN and LEE, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of concealing assets from a bankruptcy trustee and was sentenced to 37 months in prison, which was at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range. The sentence range included four sentence enhancements, including enhancements for employing “sophisticated means” in committing the offense and for abusing a position of trust or using a special skill to facilitate or conceal the offense. Plaintiff appealed and challenged her sentence on procedural and substantive grounds, including that the trial court improperly applied two of the sentence enhancements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in finding that the facts supported application of the sentence enhancements and that the trial court’s sentence properly reflected its balancing of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. (KIRSCH and LEE, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court also found that defendant was subject to a sentence enhancement because at the time he possessed the firearm he impersonated a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, challenging the sentencing enhancement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the evidence supported the district court’s findings that defendant represented himself to be a police officer by wearing law enforcement paraphernalia and that the law was a permissible regulation of false speech because it was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in public safety. (EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, concurring)

Defendant, who was found guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon, appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the evidence of the gun was the product of an unlawful search. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the smell of unburnt marijuana outside of a sealed container supplied probable cause for a search and that it was legal for the officer to order defendant out of his car during a traffic stop to conduct a search . The Seventh Circuit further explained that defendant then chose to flee, which caused a firearm to fall out of his pants, and, as a result, the trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the weapon. (SCUDDER and LEE, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty in state court of attempt to commit robbery causing serious bodily injury and was sentenced to 65 years in prison as a habitual offender. The state courts affirmed the conviction and sentence and denied the defendant’s petition for collateral relief. A federal court, however, issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus after finding that defendant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the appellate court failed to establish both that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that defendant was prejudiced as is required by Strickland and that defendant could not establish the second prong so any error was harmless. (KIRSCH and LEE, concurring)