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

The FBI obtained court orders for wiretaps on two of Atkins’s phones and began recording his telephone conversations. Agents intercepted several calls between Atkins and Claybrooks, concerning the details of various cocaine transactions. A grand jury indicted Claybrooks for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1) and distribution of 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). At trial, the prosecution relied heavily on testimony from Atkins, who testified that he began supplying Claybrooks with cocaine in 2001,that he distributed between 20 and 30 kilograms of cocaine to Claybrooks during their relationship, that Claybrooks supplied him with kilograms of cocaine on three or four occasions, and that Claybrooks occasionally brokered cocaine sales between Atkins and Claybrooks’s customers. Claybrooks was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Seventh Circuit rejected a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim and affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing, finding that the district court did not make a determination regarding the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy. View "United States v. Claybrooks" on Justia Law

The inmate filed suit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for using excessive force on multiple occasions. The trial court dismissed. He sought an order that he be given the trial transcript for free, to aid him in his appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied the motion, reasoning that he is not entitled to a transcript without charge as an appellant proceeding in forma pauperis. Regardless of poverty, he has three strikes (suits without merit) and has not shown that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, as described in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). View "Maus v. Baker" on Justia Law

After being rejected for a mortgage because Hall had a bankruptcy and their joint income was too low, Hall and Phillips applied with Bowling, a mortgage broker, under the “stated income loan program.” Bowling prepared an application that omitted Hall’s name, attributed double their combined income to Phillips, and falsely claimed that Phillips was a manager. Phillips signed the application and employment verification form. Fremont extended credit. They could not make the payments; the lender foreclosed. Bowling repeated this process often. He pleaded guilty to bank fraud and, to lower his sentence, assisted in prosecution of his clients. Phillips and Hall were convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1014. The district court prohibited them from eliciting testimony that Bowling assured them that the program was lawful and from arguing mistake of fact in signing the documents. The Seventh Circuit first affirmed, but granted rehearing en banc to clarify elements of the crime and their application to charges of mortgage fraud and reversed. The judge excluded evidence that, if believed, might have convinced a jury that any false statements made by the defendants were not known by them to be false and might also have rebutted an inference of intent to influence the bank. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law