Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for child pornography related charges, holding that evidence discovered under a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) warrant need not be suppressed. The court held that the magistrate judge's actions exceeded Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) and her statutorily prescribed authority under the Federal Magistrates Act, and thus the warrant was void ab initio. However, the court held that, because the exclusionary rule is concerned solely with deterring culpable police misconduct—and not at all with regulating magistrate judges' actions—void and voidable warrants should be treated no differently. Therefore, the court held that an officer's reasonable reliance on the former, like the latter, can provide the basis for applying the good faith exception.The court also held that, even if the good faith exception can apply when an officer relies on a void warrant, the good faith exception was applicable in this case where the officers' warrant application adequately disclosed the nature of the technology at issue and the scope of the intended search, and the officers reasonably relied on the magistrate judge's determination that the search was permissible. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claimed that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The court held that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that his claim satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), because petitioner failed to rely on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable, because all the cases he relies on were either previously available to him or were not made retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court also denied petitioner's emergency motion to stay his execution. View "In re: Gary Ray Bowles" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied the motion for stay of execution pending appeal, holding that the district court rightly dismissed petitioner's current petition as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). In this case, petitioner failed to obtain authorization from this court before filing the petition. The court rejected petitioner's remaining three claims as to why his petition should not be dismissed, and held that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal. View "Bowles v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendants Hawkins and McCree challenged their convictions for conspiring to distribute cocaine and other related offenses. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by admitting the lead case agent's testimony, because it was speculative and included improper commentary on the evidence. The panel held that defendants' remaining arguments were without merit or need not be reached. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of defendant's proposed expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b); the district court's error by admitting the lay testimony of the case agent was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice; and any error in denying defendant's post-trial motion for a new trial was harmless. View "United States v. Stahlman" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's stay of execution, holding that 18 U.S.C. 3599 did not create a right that was enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the states. Plaintiff wanted to pursue his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim that Florida interfered with his right under section 3599 to have attorneys in the Capital Habeas Unit (CHU) of the Federal Public Defender's Office represent him before the Florida Clemency Commission and Board.Therefore, because plaintiff sought to enforce a right under section 1983 that Congress did not make enforceable against the states, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his section 1983 claim before the district court. Consequently, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to stay his execution. Finally, the court held that plaintiff failed to show that he was otherwise entitled to the stay. View "Bowles v. Desantis" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions of Defendant Brown for deprivation of rights under color of law and Defendant Antico for obstruction of justice. Defendants' convictions stemmed from offenses involving an incident of police brutality and a later coverup. In this case, Brown was one of several police officers who assaulted the occupants of a vehicle that led the officers on a high-speed chase; Brown and the other officers filed reports that omitted most of the details about how they punched and kicked the occupants; and Antico, who supervised many of these officers, had his subordinates substantially change their reports to better reflect what happened as recorded on the video. The court also held that no other reversible errors related to either trial. However, the court vacated defendants' sentences because it was unclear as to whether the calculation of each defendant's guideline range rested on a factual finding infected by legal error. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court held that, although petitioner can demonstrate that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), is a new rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, he failed to show a reasonable likelihood that he would benefit from the Davis rule. The court held that Davis addressed only 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause, but the companion crime for which petitioner was convicted (armed robbery of a credit union) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause. View "In re: Drew Pollard" on Justia Law

When a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition states a legally sufficient claim for relief, a district court must order the State to respond, even if the petition appears untimely. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred when the district court, on its own initiative and without hearing from the State, decided that the statute of limitations barred the petition. In this case, the district court ordered no State response to the petitioner before dismissing. View "Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that he was entitled to habeas relief under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), for the constitutional errors that occurred during his state trial.The court held that, although there was a substantial Griffin error in this case where the prosecutor commented on defendant's choice not to testify, the error did not actually prejudice petitioner in light of the overwhelming evidence against petitioner. The court also held that petitioner failed to show a Confrontation Clause error. View "Al-Amin v. Warden" on Justia Law