Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for crimes stemming from participating via webcam in the sexual abuse of an eight-year-old girl by her mother. The court concluded that the closure of the courtroom during the victim's testimony to all persons who were not directly involved in the trial did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Ledee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her coworker and her employer, LIRR, and others asserting violations of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and 42 U.S.C. 1983; state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and violations of state and city human rights laws. On appeal, the coworker challenged the district court's award of damages to plaintiff on her claim of malicious prosecution. The incident leading up to the suit concerned the coworker's accusation that plaintiff touched her breast in the workplace parking lot. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the coworker's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability. The court concluded, however, that the jury's award of damages exceeded limits reasonably allowable in the district court's discretion. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of the coworker's motion seeking a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepted remittitur reducing the amount of the judgment. View "Stampf v. Trigg" on Justia Law

Claimant appealed from the district court's order of forfeiture seizing roughly $750,000 in cash, arguing that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for a default judgment against the res without first considering his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's judgment of forfeiture because claimant failed to establishing standing to challenge the forfeiture. View "United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119. The court joined its fellow circuits in adopting, for the purpose of interpreting the carjacking statute, the United States v. Burns definition of "presence" as the law of the circuit; a motor vehicle is in the presence of the victim if it is so within his or her reach, inspection, observation, or control that he or she could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain possession of it; this definition naturally implies a degree of physical proximity between the victim and the vehicle; and, in this case, the district court properly denied each defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the vehicle was within the proximity of the victim under the definition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Soler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on three federal fraud charges. The court concluded that the challenged jury instruction, considered in its context and circumstances, did not tend to coerce jurors into reaching a verdict; the instruction did not urge jurors to reconsider their views and defendant was not entitled to a further charge counseling jurors to hold fast to their conscientiously held beliefs; defendant's remaining arguments were without merit; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for transporting and shipping child pornography to a federal agent posing as a minor during a chat room conversation. The court concluded that the jury instructions on entrapment failed to consistently and adequately guide the jury on defendant's only defense to the only charge that carried a mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for a new trial.View "United States v. Kopstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate and practicing Muslim, filed suit against prison officials alleging that they unconstitutionally burdened his religious exercise when they ordered him to provide a urine sample within a three-hour window while he fasted in observance of Ramadan. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's entry of judgment in favor of the officials. The court concluded that the choice either to provide a urine sample by drinking water during plaintiff's fast or to face disciplinary action placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment insofar as it concerns defendant's claim for damages under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and remanded for further consideration of the claim. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the officials on plaintiff's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., claim, his Fourteenth Amendment claim, his First Amendment retaliation claim, and his free exercise claim for an injunction.View "Holland v. Goord" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, defendant contended that his plea should be vacated because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when it failed to inquire during the plea allocution about the possible impact of his heart condition and medications had on his ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Defendant made no effort to have his asserted misunderstanding of the proceedings or the consequences of his plea corrected in the two years prior to sentencing or in an otherwise timely manner. Only when he did not receive the below-Guidelines sentence he had hoped for did defendant raise for the first time on appeal his claim. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in regards to the guilty plea where plaintiff failed to demonstrate any reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty, or that the judge would not have accepted his plea, if the district court had inquired about his medical condition or medications. Even assuming that the appeal waiver is unenforceable, the court concluded that defendant's challenge to his sentence was without merit where defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for possession charges after officers conducted a warrantless entry into her home and seized cocaine. On appeal, the Government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine. The officers reasonably believed that defendant was destroying evidence by washing cocaine down the kitchen sink. The objective of the warrantless entry was to stop the destruction of evidence, and the officers' entry into the kitchen was limited to achieving that objective. Simply securing defendant did not accomplish this purpose. The court agreed with the district court that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant's home. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in determining that exigent circumstances did not also justify the officers' warrantless entry into the kitchen where the cocaine was found. Accordingly, the court reversed that portion of the order and remanded. View "United States v. Andino" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO and board chairman of Duane Reade, appealed the district court's award of restitution after he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to make false statements and four counts of securities fraud. The court affirmed the district court's determination that Oak Hill should be awarded restitution as a "non-victim," and Duane Reade's employees' attorneys fees were properly subject to restitution; the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to whether Duane Reade's payment of fees and costs to Paul, Weise and Cooley constitute "necessary" expenses under the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. 3663; and, on remand, the district court is free to exercise its discretion as to whether "determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process." View "United States v. Cuti" on Justia Law