Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Officers, executing an eviction order, discovered marijuana and firearms in plain sight in defendant's apartment. The defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of firearms by a felon (18 U.S.C. 922(g)), conditioned on his motion to suppress. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there were no issues of disputed material fact. Having been lawfully evicted two weeks earlier, the defendant had no right to be in the apartment and had no legitimate expectation of privacy; the writ authorized removal of his possessions. The officers had knowledge of the defendant's criminal history, so the incriminating nature of guns in the bedroom closet was immediately apparent.

The defendant was convicted of wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent investment and mortgage brokerage business and sentenced to 144 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Evidence turned over by the defendant's wife, who was the former corporate secretary and one of the business organizers, was properly admitted; she was not an agent for the government, which was unaware that she was collecting evidence, but acted for private reasons. It does not matter whether she had a right to take the documents, but the defendant did, in fact, share custody of the records with his wife and she had the right to consent to a search. There was sufficient evidence that the defendant intended to defraud his victims and the above-guidelines sentence was reasonable in light of evidence of criminal history and that the defendant was planning new fraudulent schemes.

A jury rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising from an incident at the county jail during which the plaintiff, an inmate, was injured. The district court denied a motion for new trial. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court was obligated to consider the same evidence considered by the jury and determine whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court's statement that it would not set aside the verdict âunless the testimony is such that reasonable persons could not believe it, because it contradicts indisputable physical facts or lawsâ indicated that the court applied the wrong standard.

The defendant, who has a long history of identity theft and misusing social security numbers, was denied reduction of his 108-month sentence. The sentence was based on a finding that there were 23 victims and more than $171,000 in loss. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court considered all relevant factors and acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive terms for two convictions for the same offense of aggravated identity theft.

The defendant was sentenced to 174 months for participation in a drug trafficking operation. The district court denied a motion to reduce the sentence after reconsidering the facts and concluding that the defendant was accountable for at least 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the Sentencing Commission has lowered the guidelines' range for offenses involving certain quantities of cocaine, relief is not available for offenses involving at least 4.5 kilograms. Nothing prohibited the district court from making new findings that are not inconsistent with earlier findings; the defendant's claim that the amount was not foreseeable to him was implausible.

After his state conviction for murder was overturned, the plaintiff brought federal claims against state officials and prosecutors and malpractice claims against his own lawyers. He stipulated to dismissal of claims against officials; the district court entered summary judgment, rejecting the malpractice claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause, as a matter of law. A report by plaintiff's expert did not establish that the attorneys' performance during voir dire caused the guilty verdict.

The prisoner, serving 30 years for drug trafficking, assaulted a guard. The Bureau of Prisons suspended its disciplinary process while the FBI investigated. After the U.S. Attorney decided not to file criminal charges, the Unit Disciplinary Committee referred the matter to a Detention Hearing Officer, who viewed a surveillance video and heard one witness and found the prisoner guilty. A magistrate concurred and imposed a loss of 14 days of good conduct time. The district court denied a habeas corpus petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting due process arguments. Regulations establishing a time frame for the release of the incident report and the initial hearing are advisory and do not create a constitutionally-protected interest; delays did not create a significant hardship or prejudice. The testimony of a witness, released from prison before the hearing, would not have changed the outcome. Because intent is not an element of prison assault, a self-defense argument was irrelevant and the prisoner's inability to present evidence about his own injuries was not prejudicial. The prison was not required to grant the prisoner access to surveillance tapes, which could compromise security.

The defendant, who has a long history of mental illness, was sentenced to 185 years for attempted murder and related crimes following a 1991 incident involving hit-and-run of a pedestrian, a police chase, a four-car pile up, and wielding a machete while growling and ranting. After exhausting Wisconsin state remedies, the defendant pursued a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. On remand, the district court denied relief for a second time. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning the defendant's attorney's waiver of a hearing on mental competence to stand trial and failure to provide certain information to the court-appointed psychiatric witness. The defendant was not exhibiting signs of mental illness at the relevant time and there was no way to evaluate his claim of amnesia concerning the events at issue. The evidence fell far short of demonstrating ineffective assistance at trial in proving that the incident was a result of a psychotic incident that was not substance-induced. The court deferred to the state court finding that the representation was substandard, but that the defendant was not prejudiced by his lawyer's lapses.

Every president, except Jefferson, has issued proclamations including an invitation to pray. The president is directed by 36 U.S.C. 119 to proclaim a national day of prayer. The district court found the statute to be a violation of the Establishment Clause and enjoined the President from issuing such a proclamation. The Seventh Circuit vacated for lack of a justiciable issue. The statute imposes duties on the President alone and does not harm the plaintiffs. No person is required to pray; any "slight" perceived by plaintiffs is insufficient to establish standing. The courts do not censor the President.

Employees filed a class action in Illinois state court, concerning violations of wage and hour laws. The company removed the case, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The federal district court remanded to state court. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the company presented plausible evidence that the case satisfied the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement ($5,000,000) and the employees did not demonstrate that it was legally impossible for them to recover that amount.