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

Police released the footage of a bank robbery to the media. Several tipsters identified Garcia as the robber. Garcia was arrested without a warrant. Two days later Detective Spano submitted a “Probable Cause Statement and Judicial Determination” (CR-215) form to a court commissioner (essentially a magistrate) to establish a basis for Garcia’s continued detention. The form references the Fourth Amendment and Wisconsin Statute 970.01, “Initial Appearance Before a Judge.” Spano indicated that he had “probable cause to believe that [Garcia] committed” bank robbery and violated his parole," citing a description of the surveillance footage and the tips. The commissioner checked a box stating: “I find probable cause to believe that the arrested person committed the offense(s),” and set bail at $50,000. Garcia, in jail, was not present for the CR-215 determination.Hours after the probable cause finding—without counsel for Garcia—the police conducted an in-person lineup with two tellers. Three days later, Wisconsin prosecutors charged Garcia with bank robbery. Garcia appeared in court that day represented by a public defender; 10 days later Garcia appeared at a preliminary hearing; the court ordered him detained pending trial.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed Garcia’s conviction, determining that the right to counsel had not attached at the time of the lineup. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a grant of habeas corpus relief (28 U.S.C. 2254). The state court's resolution of Garcia’s Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim was objectively unreasonable, even applying "vast deference" under 2254(d)(1). The court cited the “Supreme Court’s long line of cases on the attachment of the right to counsel.” The judicial machinery of the state’s adversarial process necessarily began to turn against Garcia after the commissioner executed the CR-215 form. View "Garcia v. Hepp" on Justia Law

Officers executing a warrant at Johnson’s address found a rifle and drugs. He spoke with police in a recorded proffer session on the condition that it be inadmissible except for purposes of impeachment. In April 2020, Johnson was charged in state court. His speedy trial requests were complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the state’s adjournment of jury trials. Before his December 9, 2020 trial date, the prosecutor notified the state court that he expected Johnson to be charged in federal court. The state court rescheduled the case; on January 19, 2021, the state charges were dismissed without prejudice. Johnson was indicted on federal drug and firearms charges on January 20. The district court denied his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because time spent in state custody is not considered under the federal Speedy Trial Act. Johnson had received a written summary of his proffer months earlier but had received a digital recording just days before trial and was unable to watch it at the jail. Johnson was able to view the recording before the second day of trial. He did not testify.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions, rejecting Johnson’s arguments that his speedy trial rights were violated by the delay between his arrest on state charges and his federal trial and concerning the proffer. While an officer testified improperly to an admission from the proffer, the error was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Police discovered a loaded firearm, cocaine, and more than 800 methamphetamine pills on Jones’s person and in his car during a traffic stop. Federal charges followed. Counsel declined to make frivolous challenges to the court’s jurisdiction at Jones’s request. Jones sought to represent himself. Magistrate Long conducted an extensive Faretta colloquy, covering Jones’s education, mental health, and prior legal experiences. Jones confirmed his understanding of the charges and agreed to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. He claimed that he understood the perils of self-representation, which Long explained in detail. The court allowed Jones to represent himself and appointed his public defender as standby counsel. Jones spent months before trial challenging the court’s jurisdiction in frivolous filings, advancing “sovereign-citizen” arguments.Concerned with the incoherence of the filings, the government requested a second Faretta colloquy. District Judge Mihm conducted the colloquy. Jones insisted he did not “consent” to jurisdiction and would not participate in his trial. While he acknowledged understanding the “letter” of the charges against him, he also expressed confusion about whether the proceedings were criminal, civil, administrative, or even “statutory maritime.” Mihm concluded that Jones’s waiver of counsel remained valid. Jones did not deliver opening or closing statements, cross-examine witnesses, or lodge any objections. His testimony had no bearing on the charges against him. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and 138-month sentence. Jones knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Thomas was wanted by Indiana officials and warrants had been issued for his arrest. Thomas obtained fake identification documents, including one issued by North Carolina under the name “Alredius”. Using that fictitious identity, Thomas leased an Atlanta condominium. Federal officials arrested him outside the building. Thomas’s landlord stated that she had rented the unit to “Alredius Frieson.” With the landlord’s consent, officers searched the condo, finding drugs, drug paraphernalia, and cell phones. After obtaining warrants to search the phones, the officers discovered evidence that Thomas was trafficking methamphetamine. Charged under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, Thomas unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence.The Seventh Circuit reversed. A tenant lawfully may exclude others, even when the landlord consents to a search. Using an alias to sign a lease does not deprive a tenant of a legitimate expectation of privacy. A Georgia tenant who deceives or even defrauds a landlord is entitled to retain possession of the residence until the landlord has provided notice and obtained a judicial order. Thomas’s landlord could not summarily terminate his protections without violating Georgia law, nor could she consent to a warrantless search of his condo. A breach of a rental agreement does not automatically deprive the breaching party of a legitimate expectation of privacy. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

People working part-time may qualify for weekly unemployment benefits, but must accurately report their income so the Indiana Department of Workforce Development can reduce their benefits accordingly. A claimant who knowingly fails to disclose earnings on a weekly application must repay all benefits received for that week and is subject to a civil penalty of 25% of that forfeited amount. Grashoff omitted her part-time income on 24 weekly applications. The Department determined that she knowingly violated the law and assessed a forfeiture and penalty totaling $11,190. An ALJ affirmed the sanction. Grashoff did not seek state judicial review but filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the sanction violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The district court rejected the claim, classifying the entire forfeiture as remedial rather than punitive. The penalty is a punitive sanction subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny but is not grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Grashoff conceded that the difference between the benefits she received and the smaller amount she would have received had she reported her income is purely remedial. The remaining forfeiture amount, even when considered together with the 25% penalty, is not a grossly disproportionate sanction for Grashoff’s knowing violations of the law. View "Grashoff v. Payne" on Justia Law

Hise was charged with two counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. Hise was employed by the victim's construction company as an office manager and bookkeeper for more than 12 years. An FBI investigation revealed that Hise had embezzled over $1.5 million from that company. Hise entered an open guilty plea to those charges. The district court sentenced her to 63 months’ imprisonment and ordered $200 in special assessments and $1,550,379.14 in restitution, subject to a set-off ($21,953.55), which reflected the proceeds of a Sheriff’s Sale.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) and(C) in that it failed to ensure that Hise and her attorney had read and discussed the amended PSR and any addendum to it before imposing the sentence. Hise fails to identify any objection that could have been made to the revised PSR. She has not pointed to any aspect of the PSR that was incorrect or which could be subject to an objection. The court also rejected Hise’s argument that she was denied her right to be represented by counsel because her attorney failed to make any objection to the PSR and failed to appear at the final determination hearing regarding the imposition of the final restitution amount. View "United States v. Hise" on Justia Law

Williams was a key facilitator in a years-long cocaine trafficking scheme. In 2001, he was convicted of federal drug and conspiracy charges, 18 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846 and given life sentences. Williams appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a reduced sentence, arguing that the district court erred in holding that it was not permitted to consider whether Williams’s unconstitutionally imposed mandatory life sentence contributed to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for the reduction of his sentence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to reconsider its 2021 "Thacker" decision, stating it would make no difference to Williams’s case. The district court held in the alternative that even if Williams was eligible for a reduction in his sentence, this relief was not warranted in light of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)'s factors. The court acknowledged different approaches among the circuits regarding the bounds of court discretion to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release— specifically, whether the two-step process employed by the Seventh Circuit is correct or if a more holistic approach is called for. The court noted that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is in the process of studying the issue, and recently has proposed defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to include circumstances in which “[t]he defendant is serving a sentence that is inequitable in light of changes in the law.” View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Vivirito solicited sexual images and videos from young girls. Minor A, then age 12, expressed reluctance to provide videos; Vivirito threatened to expose their sexual text exchanges unless she complied. He also threatened to kill himself. That prompted Minor A to send Vivirito videos of herself penetrating her vagina and anus with the handle of a hairbrush.Vivirito pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C.2252A(a)(2)(A), and was sentenced to 216 months in prison. The district judge added four offense levels, finding that the videos of Minor A portray “sadistic or masochistic” conduct, U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4)(A). Neither the Guideline nor the accompanying commentary defines those words. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting its precedent that, under an objective standard, pictures of a minor penetrating her vagina with the handle of a screwdriver qualify for the enhancement. The district judge did not commit clear error or abuse her discretion in finding that these videos depict sadistic or masochistic conduct. A district judge need not decide whether a given incident actually was painful or could have caused long-term injury because much sadomasochism harms the psyche rather than the body. View "United States v. Vivirito" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Bradley University closed its campus and canceled in-person activities because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It canceled one week of classes as it migrated to remote learning. Bradley resumed classes virtually and offered remote activities and resources. The campus remained closed for the rest of the semester. Bradley never rescheduled the week of canceled classes; the Spring 2020 Semester was 14 weeks instead of the planned 15 weeks of classes listed in Bradley’s Catalog, which stated: “This catalog serves as a contract between a student and Bradley.” Full-time, on-campus students had paid $17,100 in tuition and an $85 activity fee. The University provided pro-rata refunds for room and board to students who were forced to leave on-campus housing but did not refund tuition or activity fees.Eddlemon filed a purported class action, alleging that Bradley breached an implied contract to provide 15 weeks of classes and on-campus activities, and, alternatively that the University’s retention of tuition and activity fees constituted unjust enrichment. The district court certified a “Tuition Class” and an “Activity Fee Class.” The Seventh Circuit vacated. The district court did not conduct the rigorous analysis required by Rule 23 for class certification but repeatedly referred to Eddlemon’s allegations without addressing his proffered evidence or examining how he would prove his allegations with common evidence. View "Eddlemon v. Bradley Universityx" on Justia Law

Dr. Bounds was hired for one year beginning in July 2019 as an at-will employee. In February 2020, Dr. Scott stated that Scott would recommend that Bounds's contract be renewed. Scott notified Bounds and others on March 24 that she would email approved contracts and that they had until March 31 to sign and return the contracts. Upon receiving the contract, Bounds noted that her vacation days had been reduced. Scott told Bounds to contact the Board. Later that day, Bounds became ill and was advised to quarantine for 14 days. Bounds testified that she made inquiries to the Board but never received a reply. On April 1, Scott telephoned Bounds, who had not returned the signed contract. Bounds replied that she wanted her attorney to review the agreement. Scott warned that the Board previously had released another administrator who did not sign her contract by the deadline. The following day, Scott advised Bounds that the Board had requested that her position be posted as vacant. On April 14, Bounds was notified that her position had been posted.Bounds filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the Board had deprived her of procedural due process by rescinding her contract and posting her position without notice or the opportunity to be heard. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Bounds did not have a property interest subject to due process protections. Bounds had no enforceable expectation as to her continued employment. View "Bounds v. Country Club Hills School District 160" on Justia Law