Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the first stop of his truck and denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the second stop of his truck. In this case, defendant was stopped twice over the course of several months while driving his truck along Farm-to-Market Road 2050 near the Texas-Mexico border, once by a county deputy and once by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to transport an illegal alien within the United States and transportation of an alien within the United States for financial gain. The court applied the Brignoni-Ponce factors and held that the district court's conclusion that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the roving patrol stop was supported by the evidence. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from the search of his vehicle where he consented to the search. The court also held that references to certain out-of-court statements by a confidential source were harmless. In this case, the confidential source placed defendant at the scene of the crime, but so did the officers who pursued the tip and caught defendant red-handed. View "United States v. Sarli" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry. Because the district court's factual findings provided an inadequate basis for appellate review, the Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to make additional findings as to whether defendant was "in custody" within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The court declined to reach the other issues raised on appeal at this time. View "United States v. Arellano-Banuelos" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant Piper and Cortinas' conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that Piper was not deprived of due process and compulsory process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when the government did not produce a witness at trial because the witness' hearsay statements were inadmissible. Because the testimony was not clearly admissible, Piper could not show that denying the motion to continue would have resulted in serious prejudice. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Piper's motion for a new trial and the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for importation was not clearly erroneous. In regard to Cortinas and Piper's joint claim, the court held that the district court did not commit plain error in charging the jury and the verdict form was not ambiguous, inconsistent, nor did it incorrectly state the law. View "United States v. Piper" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction on charges of wire fraud, securities fraud, making false statements to the SEC, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. Defendant was the CEO of ArthroCare, a publicly traded medical device company and he, along with the company's other senior executives, had engaged in a channel-stuffing scheme.The court held that, to the extent that an FBI case agent's testimony was improper, any error was harmless; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of ArthroCare's former controller; the jury instructions were not erroneous under the wire fraud statute; and jury instructions on accomplice liability comported with the general aiding and abetting knowledge and intention requirements reiterated in Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014). The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant, a state medical examiner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on claims arising from the failed prosecution of a husband for the death of his wife. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the motion confined to the summary judgment evidence. In this case, the district court's analysis cited allegations in the pleadings without reference to record evidence. Therefore, in the absence of an identification of summary judgment evidence relied upon, the court could not affirm the denial of qualified immunity. View "Dean v. Phatak" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and denial of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner was a member of the "Texas Seven," a group that escaped from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and violently took hostages and stole guns and ammunition.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing where an evidentiary hearing would not enable petitioner to establish a right to federal habeas relief. The court also denied a COA on petitioner's claim that the state trial court violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from offering the Ranking Document as mitigating evidence, Brady violation claim, ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Enmund/Tison culpability claim, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. View "Halprin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief, holding that the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The court held that Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2016), barred petitioner from habeas relief. Grim applied Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), to a case in which a crime laboratory supervisor -- rather than an analyst, as in the case here -- testified at trial, and held that such testimony did not violate clearly established law. View "Jenkins v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court held that the magistrate judge should have held an evidentiary hearing to investigate petitioner's allegations of an actual conflict of interest, and failure to do so was an abuse of discretion under established precedents. In this case, petitioner presented evidence that his counsel advised one of his co-defendants to plead guilty, prior to his own plea agreement, and that his counsel did so in a manner that prejudiced petitioner's defense. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for transporting aliens for commercial advantage or private financial gain, and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the government's introduction of videotaped depositions of two material witnesses at trial violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause because the government failed to demonstrate the witnesses were unavailable. The court held that the government's efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses did not meet the good faith standard. Furthermore, the error was harmful because the government could not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the videotaped depositions of the material witnesses did not contribute to defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law