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

The defendant, Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De Leon had been removed from the U.S. five times previously, with his first removal in 2002 following a conviction for the sale and delivery of methamphetamine. Subsequent removals occurred in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2022, each following separate convictions for illegal reentry. Despite escalating sentences for each conviction, De Leon reentered the U.S. again and was arrested in January 2023. He was indicted for illegal reentry and pleaded guilty after the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin calculated a sentencing Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months but imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 48 months. The court justified the sentence by emphasizing De Leon's repeated illegal reentries and the failure of previous escalating punishments to deter him. The court also noted De Leon's struggle with alcohol, which contributed to his criminal behavior, although this was not the main reason for the above-Guidelines sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence, finding that the justifications provided were consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court noted that De Leon's repeated offenses and the ineffectiveness of prior sentences warranted the above-Guidelines sentence. Additionally, the appellate court rejected De Leon's argument that the district court improperly relied on his alcohol dependence and found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of De Leon's motion to dismiss the indictment, citing recent precedent. View "United States v De Leon De Paz" on Justia Law

Curtis Walker, who was 17 years old when he committed murder, was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date set for 2071, effectively making it a life-without-parole sentence. After serving nearly 30 years, Walker sought postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment based on a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. Walker's request for a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate his rehabilitation was denied by the Wisconsin state courts, prompting him to file a federal habeas corpus petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Walker's postconviction motion, holding that his sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the sentencing judge had considered his youth and its attendant circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. Walker then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely and without merit, concluding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent, particularly in light of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Jones v. Mississippi. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the Supreme Court's precedents did not clearly establish a categorical prohibition against sentencing corrigible juvenile offenders to life without parole. View "Walker v Cromwell" on Justia Law

Michael Williams was convicted by a Wisconsin jury of reckless homicide and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appealed his convictions to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, arguing that a jury instruction unconstitutionally lowered the government's burden of proof and that the prosecutor's closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review.Williams then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court held that the state appellate court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in concluding that it was not reasonably likely the jury applied the instruction in an unconstitutional manner. The court also held that Williams had not demonstrated that the prosecutor's remarks violated clearly established Supreme Court precedent.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Williams raised the same two arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent regarding the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not shift the burden of proof to the defense in a manner that violated due process, especially considering the trial court's curative instructions. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Williams had not shown that the state court's rulings were so lacking in justification as to constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Williams v Meisner" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted by an Indiana jury of felony rape, felony criminal confinement, and misdemeanor battery. He appealed, arguing that the exclusion of certain DNA evidence and the destruction of the victim's blood sample before toxicology testing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated his convictions for criminal confinement and battery on double jeopardy grounds but affirmed the rape conviction. Johnson's petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court was denied. He then sought post-conviction review in state court and, after exhausting state remedies, sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Johnson's habeas petition, concluding that his DNA-related claim was procedurally defaulted and that the state court reasonably applied federal law in determining that the State had not acted in bad faith when discarding the blood sample. Johnson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Johnson's claim regarding the exclusion of DNA evidence was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it in his petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Additionally, the court found that the Indiana Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in determining that the police had not acted in bad faith when disposing of the blood sample, as the evidence was only potentially exculpatory and there was no clear indication of bad faith. The court concluded that the state court's decision did not deviate from established federal law or constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Johnson v Sevier" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, was on a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After refusing to leave his cell for a wellness check, correctional officers used force to extract him for three consecutive days without incident. On the fourth day, Captain Jay Van Lanen used pepper spray, despite knowing Smith had a medical contraindication. Smith experienced severe respiratory distress and was placed naked in a cold cell for 23 hours.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that a jury could determine that the use of pepper spray and the conditions of Smith's confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. However, the court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision based on qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.The court held that while the actions of Captain Van Lanen and Lieutenant Retzlaff could be seen as excessive and lacking legitimate penological purpose, the specific rights violated were not clearly established at the time. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence of excessive force during Smith's escort to the health unit, affirming summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Smith v Kind" on Justia Law

A citizen-journalist from South Bend, Indiana, challenged the constitutionality of Indiana's "buffer law," which makes it a crime to knowingly or intentionally approach a law enforcement officer within 25 feet after being ordered to stop approaching. The journalist, who records and livestreams police activity, argued that the law violated his First Amendment right to record the police in public spaces. The incident leading to the challenge occurred when the journalist was ordered by police to move back while recording a crime scene, which he complied with under threat of arrest.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana consolidated the journalist's motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits. The district court found the buffer law constitutional, ruling that it only had an incidental effect on the public's First Amendment rights and served legitimate public safety interests. The court denied the journalist's request for an injunction and entered final judgment for the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Indiana's buffer law is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression. It found that the law is narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests, such as officer and bystander safety and the integrity of police investigations, without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. The court also determined that the law leaves open ample alternative channels for communication, as it does not prevent individuals from recording police activity from a reasonable distance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the constitutionality of Indiana's buffer law. View "Nicodemus v City of South Bend" on Justia Law

Investigators suspected Lamont Coleman of running a heroin operation from his apartment building in Gary, Indiana. They conducted fourteen controlled drug purchases using confidential informants and undercover officers. Evidence from these buys and surveillance led to a search warrant for Coleman’s apartment and a neighboring house he owned. The search uncovered drugs, money, and firearms, leading to Coleman’s conviction on most counts of the indictment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a Franks hearing and denied Coleman’s motion to suppress evidence, finding sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. At trial, the jury convicted Coleman of being a felon in possession of a firearm, conspiring to distribute heroin, and possessing heroin with intent to distribute. The jury acquitted him of some drug distribution charges and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Coleman was sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Coleman’s appeal, which included four claims. Coleman argued that the district court constructively amended his indictment by issuing generic jury instructions, the government withheld exculpatory information, the court improperly excluded an affidavit as evidence, and the court erred in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions on all grounds. The court found no prejudice from the alleged constructive amendment, determined that the new evidence about the surveillance recordings was not material, upheld the exclusion of Leroy Coleman’s affidavit due to its unreliability, and noted that current precedent allows the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. View "USA v Coleman" on Justia Law

Grant Gambaiani was sentenced to 34 years in prison after being found guilty by an Illinois jury of multiple crimes, including the repeated sexual assault of his minor cousin, D.G. During the trial, the courtroom was partially closed during D.G.'s testimony, which Gambaiani argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction, and the Supreme Court of Illinois denied review. Gambaiani then sought postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, but the state courts denied relief.Gambaiani filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, claiming violations of his constitutional rights to a public trial and effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's conclusion that Gambaiani waived his right to a public trial by failing to object to the partial closure was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court also found that the partial closure of the courtroom during D.G.'s testimony did not violate Gambaiani's Sixth Amendment right. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit upheld the state court's determination that Gambaiani's attorneys provided effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, as the state court's credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by the record. View "Gambaiani v Greene" on Justia Law

Edward C. Brown was convicted of distribution and possession of child pornography in 2015. After serving his prison sentence, he was placed on supervised release with conditions, including allowing unannounced visits by probation officers and reporting any cell phones he possessed. During an unannounced visit in April 2023, probation officers discovered an unreported cell phone in Brown's apartment. A forensic search of the phone revealed 75 thumbnail images of child pornography in an inaccessible cache folder. Brown was subsequently charged with possession of child pornography and convicted by a jury.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois admitted Brown's prior child pornography convictions as evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 404(b). The court also allowed evidence of Brown's supervised release status. At trial, the jury heard testimony from government witnesses, including a probation officer, a police detective, and an FBI special agent, as well as defense witnesses who highlighted deficiencies in the forensic evidence. Despite the lack of metadata and direct evidence linking Brown to the images, the jury found him guilty. The district court denied Brown's motion for acquittal and sentenced him to 78 months in prison, followed by a 15-year term of supervised release. The court also revoked his supervised release from prior convictions, adding a consecutive 6-month prison term.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Brown's conviction. The court held that the combination of the 75 thumbnail images, Brown's prior convictions, his interview admissions, and his failure to report the phone provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the forensic evidence, while flawed, was supported by other incriminating factors, including Brown's technological knowledge and his concealment of the phone from probation. View "USA v Brown" on Justia Law

David Walton, a Wisconsin prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ashley Nehls, a prison nurse, alleging that she violated his Eighth Amendment rights by engaging in a sexual relationship with him. Walton testified that the relationship was consensual. The district court granted summary judgment for Nehls, reasoning that a consensual sexual relationship does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case and entered summary judgment in favor of Nehls. The court concluded that Walton's testimony about the consensual nature of the relationship meant that it could not be considered a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Walton appealed the decision, urging the appellate court to adopt a legal presumption that any sexual activity between a prisoner and a prison official is nonconsensual and violates the Constitution unless the prison official can show an absence of coercion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the power dynamics between prisoners and prison officials and the evolving standards of decency, noting that all 50 states have criminalized sexual conduct between prison officials and prisoners. However, the court found that even if it applied the presumption of nonconsent, the evidence in the record established that the relationship between Walton and Nehls lacked any coercive factors. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment for Nehls, leaving the broader legal question of adopting a presumption of nonconsent for another day. View "Walton v Nehls" on Justia Law