January brought a few criminal (or criminal adjacent) cases our readers might find interesting:
- United States of America v. Byron Pierson, No. 21-3248: Pierson appeals two discretionary rulings of the district court. His first issue has to do with a proffer agreement. Here, Pierson initially agreed to plead guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. Importantly, the proffer letter he signed contained an exception to the usual bar against using statements obtained during plea negotiations, as it provided that Pierson’s statements could be used if certain “triggering events” (like inconsistent testimony at “any trial or other legal proceeding) occurred. Pierson then decided to go to trial, at which time he filed a motion in limine to exclude statements made in connection with the proffer, arguing among other things that he did not knowingly and voluntarily sign the proffer letter. The district court properly refused to hold a hearing given the “conclusory” nature of Pierson’s averments; in addition, the error is harmless as no such statements were eventually introduced. Pierson’s second argument fares no better as the Court concludes that the district court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting “course of investigation” evidence after Pierson opened the door (although the Court does have a nice sentence or two about its general skepticism about such evidence).
- United States of America v. Johneak Johnson, No. 23:1264: This is a lengthy opinion, the upshot of which is that the district court erred when it did not permit the government, in this felon in possession of a firearm case, to introduce evidence about an identifying feature of the weapon, a laser sight. The case is a notable read, however, as it constitutes a rare discretionary reversal on a pretrial evidentiary ruling and contains a number of citations to other such reversals in the Seventh Circuit.
- United States of America v. Charles R. Hays, No. 22-2394: Officers on the lookout for a meth dealer named Chuck pulled over Hays and recovered evidence of personal meth use from his passenger. After spotting a screwdriver inside the car, police then went under the hood, removed an air filter, and found Hays’ meth stash. Given the permissive rules regarding automobile searches, this search passes muster on appeal.
- United States of America v. David Hueston, No. 23-1057: This frustrating case shows how difficult, perhaps impossible, it is to win on a Franks claim. Here, the officers involved in this drug case filed an affidavit which was filled with “misstatements and omissions” which may even rise to the level of being called “sloppy.” However, the district court’s credibility finding–that the officers did not intend to mislead the issuing judge–is affirmed given the lower court’s factual findings. And, even if Huesten had managed to overcome that hurdle, good-faith still defeats his claim.
- Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie, No. 22-1585: This is an Eighth Amendment case, so not strictly relevant, but we thought readers might still be interested in this horrifying fact-pattern originating out of Green Bay Correctional. After Brown inserted a metal screw into his body, the prison doctor attempted to remove it without administering anesthesia. Instead, he made what the Seventh Circuit labels as “derisive” comments to Brown, including comments that he needed to change his attitude. After failing to remove the embedded screw, the doctor told Brown the object could “stay there.” Brown was then left in restraints for another four hours before being taken to a local hospital which “deemed it obvious” that anesthesia should have been used. The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court’s summary judgment finding and remands for further proceedings, while also advising the district court that Brown might benefit from the appointment of counsel.
