The Seventh Circuit has been quiet as of late; accordingly, we tried to consolidate the recap for our readers here:
United States of America v. Paul S. Osterman, No. 22-2773: This case originates from Oneida County and therefore may be of interest to readers in that region. After receiving cybertips regarding a user on MeetMe.com who was trying to use that website to facilitate sexual relationships with children, the police investigation led them to several public WiFi spots; eventually, they zeroed in on Osterman as their suspect and sought a warrant to place a GPS tracker on his car. Osterman challenges that search warrant on appeal, arguing that suppression was warranted under Franks v. Delaware. The case shows just how difficult this standard is to meet, as the Court agrees that the affidavit included false information and that the officer acted recklessly in preparing it. Yet, it holds that the false statements were immaterial and therefore affirms.
United States of America v. Christopher Truett, No. 22-1349: Although the defendant made some “odd, informal” comments during the plea colloquy–and a later evaluation revealed significant deficits–the district court did not err when it did not sua sponte hold a competency hearing given the totality of the record.
United States of America v. Robert Mason Elliot, No. 23-1148: Elliot’s attorney moved to withdraw after discovering that he had unknowingly been used in a scheme to smuggle drugs into the jail (specifically, he discovered suboxone strips taped to legal materials he was delivering to his client from a third-party). The lawyer moved to withdraw and informed the court of the situation at an ex parte hearing. Elliot was not told about his attorney’s concerns, only that his attorney was asking to withdraw. Elliot objected to the motion, explaining that he had confidence in his lawyer and that his family mortgaged their home to pay his lawyer’s $250,000 (!) fee. While the lawyer continued to ask to withdraw, the court denied the motion, finding that withdrawal was unwarranted given that the suboxone smuggling scheme was never consummated and Elliot had a right to counsel of choice. On appeal, the Court concludes that the issue is not waived by Elliot’s guilty plea. It declines to address whether a conflict existed and instead affirms because Elliot cannot establish an “adverse effect.”
United States of America v. Joshua R. Campbell, No. 22-3283: Campbell was on parole when agents arrived at his home and found him nude in bed. When asked, he admitted to possessing sex toys and a computer, both violations of his conditions of release. He also unlocked his cell phone at his agent’s request, revealing possible child porn. Although he initially refused to give up the password to his computer, he ultimately gave in. On appeal, he argues that his protection against self-incrimination was self-executing, given that he was required under the conditions of release to cooperate with the parole authorities. Although the panel expresses skepticism about the wisdom of such a rule, the Court holds that is bound by precedent establishing that this situation did not create a self-executing right against incrimination; if Campbell did not want to answer questions, he could have invoked the Fifth. Likewise, it also holds that he was not “in custody” when questioned about these matters inside his home.
Akil Carter v. City of Wauwatosa, No. 23-2111: This is a civil case, alleging a § 1983 violation based on an allegedly improper traffic stop. The case is potentially relevant to our readers, however, as it contains a lengthy discussion of what to do when a reviewing court is confronted with a preserved Batson challenge wherein the lower court failed to make adequate findings. Under the Seventh’s precedent, the remedy is a remand so that these findings can be made. The case also includes a nice reminder that Batson challenges are not reserved for black defendants and that the race of the defendant is irrelevant (contrary to some of the district court’s remarks).
United States of America v. Andre Bowyer, No. 23-3169: This case isn’t strictly relevant, as it deals with the right of allocution under federal law and doesn’t result in a defense win. Yet, we thought we would draw our readers’ attention to the dissent filed by Judge Jackson-Akiwumi, which points out how the judge’s constant interruptions and belittling conduct deprived the defendant of his right to meaningfully allocute during sentencing.
United States of America v. Michael A. Davis, No. 23-2259: Police lawfully searched Davis’s car and recovered a firearm after a 911 caller reported that Davis had threatened to kill her mother, had a gun in his car, and was proximate to their home.
United States of America v. Joseph Albert Fuchs III, No. 22-3269: Holding that a foreign birth certificate was properly authenticated and admitted to prove that Fuchs traveled to the Philippines to have sex with a minor.
