Criminal Law

In prosecution on charges of possession of child pornography, as well as sexual exploitation of child, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer pursuant to search warrant, even though defendant argued that information provided by 13-year-old victim of child molestation was five years old, and thus, according to defendant, was too stale to establish probable cause to search his home where computer was located. Information in warrant concerning hoarding habits of collectors of child pornography helped to explain why defendant may have retained images of victim on his computer, even under circumstances where images were created five years ago. Moreover, detective seeking warrant explained to issuing judge possibility of recovering five-year old images.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, alleging that witness’ in-court identification of defendant as culprit in charged reckless homicide offense denied defendant his due process rights, where witness admitted during cross-examination that he knew that he would be asked to identify culprit and that he would point to only African-American at defense table as culprit, and where witness was unable to identify defendant during pre-trial photo array. Witness’ testimony was not unconstitutionally unreliable, where witness also told authorities that he would be able to identify culprit in person, and where witness had ample opportunity to have viewed defendant immediately after shooting. Moreover, any flaws in witness’ testimony was matter for jury to resolve. Also, defendant could not assert any Confrontation Clause violation based on testimony from another witness, who recalled substance of conversation between defendant and third-party, where defendant conceded that said testimony was non-testimonial in nature.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s second motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 USC section 3582(c) on his crack cocaine drug offenses, where instant requested reduction would place defendant's sentence below guidelines for career offender. While defendant was potentially eligible for reduction in sentence, where his original offense level was higher than applicable career offender level, defendant’s second request for reduction that would put defendant's sentence below applicable career offender guidelines was inconsistent with Sentencing Commission’s policy statements, where Dist. Ct.’s original finding that defendant was career offender remained in place.

In prosecution of four defendants on mail and wire fraud counts stemming from scheme to purchase HUD properties on false pretenses by recruiting unqualified buyers for said properties and then submitting false loan applications to purchase said properties, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motions to sever their cases from their co-defendants. Severance would have required necessity to prove on multiple occasions instant complex fraud scheme, and none of instant defendants could establish that they played minor role in scheme in comparison to their co-defendants so as to justify any severance request. Defendants also failed to show how any evidence admitted at joint trial would not have been admitted against them in any severed trial. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in directing defendants to pay restitution to certain banks that had refinanced original loans procured by defendants, where there was no evidence that said banks had relied on misrepresentations made by defendants in original loan applications.