Criminal Law

U.S. v. Wolfe

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Wolfe
Criminal Court
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3281
Decision Date: 
December 5, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Hammond Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on bank theft and unlawful transportation of stolen goods charges, prosecutor erred during closing arguments by improperly vouching for credibility of govt. witness by urging jury to agree with him that said witness was one of “clearest, sharpest witnesses on trial,” and by misstating trial testimony by implying that all witnesses had identified defendant as individual on tape at scene of crime. However, both errors were harmless where evidence against defendant was substantial. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing $3,028,011.29 restitution order, even though defendant argued that restitution order was improper because it had not been supported by jury’s verdict.

U.S. v. Matthews

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Matthews
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3121
Decision Date: 
December 4, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 78-month term of incarceration on distribution of crack cocaine charges, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. improperly believed that it was bound to use 18-to-1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio adopted in Fair Sentencing Act, and that instant sentence constituted unwarranted disparity with sentences given by other Dist. Ct. judges who used 1-to-1 crack-to powder cocaine ratio. Record failed to support defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. misunderstood its discretion to use different crack-to-powder cocaine ratio. Moreover, fact that other Dist. Ct. judges used different ratio did not render instant sentence unreasonable where defendant’s sentence was otherwise within applicable advisory sentencing range, and where disparity arose only out of another Dist. Ct.’s policy disagreement with sentencing guideline.

Dietrich v. Smith

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Dietrich v. Smith
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1672
Decision Date: 
December 4, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on sexual assault charge, Dist. Ct. did not deny defendant due process by refusing to conduct in camera inspection of counselor’s records concerning victim of sexual assault prior to counselor testifying in sentencing hearing that sexual assault had negative effect on victim. Defendant failed to make plausible showing that victim’s counseling records would produce material evidence, and any favorable evidence contained in said records would have been cumulative to other evidence supporting defendant’s claim that victim’s mental state was affected by factors unrelated to sexual assault.

U.S. v. Purnell

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Purnell
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1283
Decision Date: 
December 3, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for reduction in sentence on charges of crack cocaine distribution and use of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under section 3582(c) of Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). Record showed that defendant’s 78-month original sentence was within reduced guideline range of FSA, and Dist. Ct. could properly look to defendant’s false statements made in his post-conviction efforts to set aside his firearm conviction to deny instant request for discretionary reduction of sentence.

U.S. v. Moreland

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Moreland
Criminal Court
Conspiracy
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 11-2546 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
December 3, 2012
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Terre Haute Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Record contained sufficient evidence to support convictions for two of several defendants charged in conspiracy to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana. While both defendants argued that limited amount of drugs that they purchased for resale or for personal consumption was too small to establish that their drug supplier knew that defendants would be re-selling drugs on behalf of conspiracy, record showed that both defendants requested that his supplier provide wholesale quanties of methamphetamine on credit, which was sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. Dist. Ct. also did not err in excusing prior to voir dire prospective jurors who expressed time hardships to serving on jury; prospective jurors were told that trial might last five weeks, and defendants failed to establish any systematic exclusion of definable element of society.

People v. Hughes

People v. Hughes
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL 112817
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
THEIS
Trial court had jurisdiction to entertain plea of guilty to the nol-prossed charge, and Defendant received the benefit of his bargain with the State. Defense counsel owes a duty to inform a defendant who pleads guilty to a sexually violent offense that he will be considered for involuntary commitment at the end of his prison term. However, Defendant failed to establish that his counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiency. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring; FREEMAN and BURKE, dissenting.)

U.S. v. Taylor

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Taylor
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3607
Decision Date: 
November 30, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on felon in possession of firearm charge stemming from incident in which defendant and two of his relatives were accused of shooting rival gang members, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion in limine to preclude govt. from introducing evidence of two other firearms that were found near arrest scene and were linked to said relatives who were with defendant at time of arrest. Ct. rejected defendant's argument that admission of evidence regarding said firearms constituted improper propensity evidence where Ct. found that said evidence was relevant to show that it was more likely that defendant possessed third firearm recovered at arrest scene and to also bolster testimony of eye-witness who claimed that all three individuals participated in shooting.

People v. Giraud

People v. Giraud
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Sexual Assault
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL 113116
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
GARMAN
Defendant was convicted of multiple sexual assaults on his 14-year-old daughter, while knowing that he was HIV-positive. Victim did not contract HIV. An accused does not commit aggravated criminal sexual assault as defined in Section 12-14(a)(2) of Criminal Code when he commits the crime knowing that he is HIV-positive. The aggravating circumstances of a threat or endangerment of the life of the victim must exist while the offender is engaged in the conduct constituting the offense. A risk of future harm is not a threat of harm, and exposure of victim to HIV during commission of offense did not threaten or endanger her life. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Tate

People v. Tate
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL 112214
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
FREEMAN
Defendant was convicted of murder after bench trial; four eyewitnesses testified identifying him as the shooter. Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call two alibi witnesses and two occurrence witnesses whose affidavits were attached to his postconviction petition, in which he also claimed actual innocence. First-stage postconviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel are judged by a lower pleading standard than are second-stage petitions. Affidavits attached to Defendant's petition are sufficient to advance to second stage, as they meet the "arguable" test, that petition may not be summarily dismissed if it is arguable that counsel's performance fell below objective standard of reasonableness and it is arguable that Defendant was prejudiced. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Meersman

People v. Meersman
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL 114163
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Rock Island Co.
Holding: 
Writ of mandamus awarded.
Justice: 
BURKE
Any consecutive sentences imposed for triggering offenses must be served prior to, and independent of, any sentences imposed for nontriggering offense. Defendant's sentences for two nontriggering offenses (failure to register as a sex offender), which may run concurrently to each other, must be served after his sentence for the triggering offense of criminal sexual assault. Thus, writ of mandamus issued, ordering sentencing judge to vacate sentencing order which imposed concurrent sentences, and resentence Defendant to consecutive sentences. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)