Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 180-month term of incarceration on charge of using Internet to traffic in child pornography, even though Dist. Ct. made unsupported observation that defendant suffered from uncontrollable illness to commit future related offenses. Record showed that Dist. Ct. discounted said observation by noting that defendant had in fact controlled desire to view child pornography, and Dist. Ct. could otherwise base instant below-guidelines sentence on need to deter others from engaging in similar crimes.

In prosecution on drug and firearms charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress drugs that he had thrown out of his car during low-speed car chase, even though defendant had argued that he was illegally seized when he threw drugs out of car. While govt.'s conceded that police did not have reasonable suspicion to justify stopping him at time they initiated chase, denial of suppression motion was proper since defendant was not seized for 4th Amendment purposes when he discarded drugs, but rather became seized only when he was subsequently pulled over by police.

In prosecution on armed robbery charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged fraudulent check-cashing scheme where such evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to explain ongoing criminal relationship between defendant and others that led to their participation in charged offense. Fact that check-cashing scheme had little similarity to charged offense was immaterial. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting officer's statement regarding third-party's out-of-court identification of defendant as culprit where defendant was given opportunity to recall third-party to witness stand to discuss said identification.

Dist. Ct. did not err in rejecting defendants' requests for lower sentences on charge of alien being in U.S. after having been deported, even though defendants made said requests based on disparity of sentences given to others in different Dist. Cts that use fast-track programs. While defendants were potentially eligible to receive lower sentences, defendants failed to establish that: (1) they promptly pleaded to charged offense, as well as agreed to factual basis for said plea and executed waiver of rights; and (2) they would have been eligible for fast-track treatment in other Dist. Cts. Defendants also failed to submit required study containing likely sentence ranges in Dist. Cts that offer fact-track program.

In prosecution on drug and racketeering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress certain post-arrest statements made to police that defendant claimed violated both his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and his 6th Amendment right to counsel. Dist. Ct. could properly believe police officials' claim that defendant was actually given Miranda warnings prior to giving statement so as to defeat any 5th Amendment claim. Moreover, while govt. had filed criminal complaint against defendant prior to his arrest, defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel had not attached at time defendant gave his post-arrest statement since mere filing of federal complaint was insufficient to trigger defendant's right to counsel. Ct. alternatively found that defendant had waived any 6th Amendment right to counsel when defendant received his Miranda warnings and then subsequently agreed to give statement.