Criminal Law

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and possession charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress drugs seized from car. While another fact-finder could have disbelieved officer's testimony that he actually saw defendant place drugs into vehicle from 50-foot vantage point, Dist. Ct.'s finding that officer was credible (and thus had probable cause to arrest defendant) was not so completely lacking in foundation where officer stated that he had used binoculars to make said observation, and where pictures of defendant at scene supported other aspects of officer's observations.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 210-month term of incarceration on charge of threatening physical force against witness to influence his testimony where Dist. Ct. used advisory guideline range found in section 2A2.1 of USSG that pertained to assaults with intent to commit murder, and where defendant had uttered threat that he would kill witness if witness showed up in court. Dist. Ct. considered all appropriate factors under section 3553(a), which included Dist. Ct. observation that substantial sentence was needed in view of fact that defendant had history of violent temper and violent assaults.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged his 180-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge that was based in part on defendant's prior Ill. conviction for aggravated fleeing from police officer and juvenile adjudication for attempted armed robbery. Defendant's conviction for aggravated fleeing of police officer qualified as violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Moreover, fact that defendant's juvenile adjudication was not obtained by jury did not prevent use of said adjudication to enhance sentence under ACCA. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 104-month term of incarceration on counterfeiting charge where said sentence was based in part on finding that defendant had obstructed justice by making admittedly false statements regarding defendant's counsel in motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and on Dist. Ct.'s failure to apply 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility arising out of defendant's entry of second guilty plea. Defendant's false statements in successful motion to withdraw first guilty plea were sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice even though defendant eventually recanted said statements on witness stand. Moreover, Ct. could rely on defendant's obstruction, as well as fact that defendant had waited until start of second trial on counterfeiting charge to enter second guilty plea, when denying his request for reduction based on acceptance of responsibility.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that prosecution wrongfully withheld three exculpatory eyewitness statements that implicated another individual as the actual shooter. Dist. Ct. applied wrong standard of proof on materiality element under Brady that improperly required defendant to show that withheld evidence would have established his innocence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. failed to consider cumulative effect of suppressed evidence, which was otherwise sufficient to show reasonable probability of different result at trial.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 110-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge based in part on finding that his prior Indiana conviction for fleeing police officer in vehicle was crime of violence under section 2K2.1(a)(2) of USSG. Under Spells, 537 F3d 743, same Indiana offense qualified as violent felony for purposes of sentencing under Armed Career Criminal Act, and Dist. Ct. could properly view violent felony and crime of violence as similar terms.