John Louis Coffey

The case involved Michael Parish's appeal of the dismissal of his federal lawsuit against the City of Chicago and several detectives, in which he asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment after his acquittal on murder charges. Parish alleged that officers had fabricated evidence and suppressed exculpatory material, but he conceded at the district court level that Seventh Circuit precedent foreclosed the claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that its earlier decision in Newsome v. McCabe remains controlling because Illinois provides a state-law remedy for malicious prosecution, and a footnote in Wallace v. Kato does not require reconsideration of that precedent. The court noted that other potential constitutional theories, such as a Brady due-process claim, were not pursued on appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Badayah Brazelton, police arrested the defendant after a shooting and obtained a warrant to search his home, where they found firearms and drugs leading to his conviction on two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924 and three drug charges under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The defendant argued on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because one juror was a relative of the shooting victim, but the court held that he had expressly waived any challenge to that juror during voir dire and jury selection. The court affirmed the conviction on the basis of this waiver but remanded the case for resentencing, agreeing with the parties that the district court should have the opportunity to consider a below-guidelines sentence in light of Kimbrough v. United States regarding the crack-to-powder cocaine ratio.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Badayah Brazelton, who was arrested after a shooting but convicted by a jury on two firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924 and three drug possession offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841 based on guns and drugs found during a search of his home. Brazelton appealed his conviction, arguing that one juror was related to the shooting victim and thus biased, and he also challenged his 425-month sentence on the ground that the district court lacked discretion to vary from the guidelines due to the crack-to-powder cocaine ratio. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that Brazelton had expressly waived any challenge to the juror during voir dire by declining two opportunities to strike the juror for cause. The court remanded for resentencing, agreeing with the parties that Kimbrough v. United States permitted the district court to consider a below-guidelines sentence based on disagreement with the crack-powder disparity.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In United States v. Badayah Brazelton, the defendant was arrested after being identified as the shooter in an incident, and a subsequent search of his home pursuant to a warrant uncovered firearms, crack cocaine, marijuana, and related paraphernalia. He was convicted by a jury on two gun-related counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924 and three drug possession counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841, receiving a 425-month sentence. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that Brazelton had waived any claim of juror bias by explicitly declining to challenge for cause a juror who was a relative of the shooting victim, despite knowing of the relationship during voir dire. The court remanded for resentencing, however, because the district court had not considered its discretion to vary from the guidelines based on the crack-to-powder cocaine ratio following Kimbrough v. United States.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involves Darryl Allen's federal habeas appeal challenging his Illinois armed robbery conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Allen contended that his trial lawyer improperly elicited testimony from a detective about Allen's post-arrest silence after Miranda warnings, and that appellate counsel failed to raise this issue on direct appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, concluding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Allen suffered no prejudice because the evidence of guilt—including the victim's identification, a surveillance video, and evidence of flight—was overwhelming. The court noted the first trial ended in a mistrial but held the state courts reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in finding no prejudice on the full record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Victor Dean, who was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found stolen guns and heroin in his home following his arrest on outstanding warrants. Dean moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was conducted without his consent, but the district court credited the officers' testimony that he had orally consented and denied the motion. Dean then sought to reconsider based on claims of ineffective assistance by his attorney, which the court also denied. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its credibility determinations or in finding that any deficiencies in counsel's performance did not prejudice Dean, as the outcome depended on resolved credibility issues.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In this case, James Jackson appealed the length of the prison term imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release, which stemmed from his 2002 conviction for using a firearm in a drug-trafficking crime. Jackson had violated release conditions by committing two drunk-driving offenses, including a felony DWI under Indiana law, leading the court to impose an additional 27-month term based on advisory sentencing guidelines. He argued that a felony DWI should not be classified as a crime of violence under the guidelines, which would lower the recommended range from Grade A to Grade B violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same term regardless of the classification, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Begay v. United States clarified that DWIs are not crimes of violence. The court found the sentence not plainly unreasonable under the relevant guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

criminal law

Brian Ketelboeter applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, asserting that chronic pain from a 1995 work injury and related conditions prevented him from working as a truck driver or in other roles. An ALJ denied the claim after a hearing, determining that although Ketelboeter could not return to his prior job, he retained the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy; the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the denial, concluding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's discounting of the treating physician's restrictive opinion, the assessment of Ketelboeter's physical limitations, and the finding that sparse evidence of mental health issues did not establish a disabling impairment.

healthcareprocedure

Tommy Smith, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued Milwaukee police officers, state corrections employees, and hearing officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, claiming they conspired to arrest him without probable cause for being a felon in possession of a firearm and attempted armed robbery, leading to revocation of his parole from a prior conviction. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of the parole revocation, which Smith had not successfully challenged. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on statements from Smith's cousin, that various defendants enjoyed absolute or qualified immunity due to their quasi-judicial roles or lack of personal involvement, and that Smith failed to show a conspiracy or overcome the Heck bar.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Adeoye Adebowale, a Nigerian-born UK citizen admitted under the Visa Waiver Program, who applied for asylum but failed to appear at his scheduled hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. He filed a motion to reopen, claiming he misread the date due to a viral infection and stress from potential homelessness, but the immigration judge denied it for lack of exceptional circumstances, citing inadequate notice of any illness and clear prior notifications of the hearing date, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Adebowale petitioned for review, arguing insufficient consideration of his claims, improper evidentiary demands, and due process violations in the notices. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the challenges concerned only factual determinations underlying a discretionary decision, not constitutional claims or questions of law such as misinterpretation of statutes or application of incorrect legal standards.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

Hector Esquivel, a Mexican citizen and long-term U.S. resident, was placed in removal proceedings after returning from travel abroad, based on two misdemeanor theft convictions deemed crimes involving moral turpitude. An immigration judge found him ineligible for a waiver of removal under former INA § 212(c) because he had previously served more than five years in prison for an aggravated felony (1981 attempted murder conviction), and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed while denying related motions. Esquivel argued that his prior § 212(c) waiver from 1989-1991 prevented consideration of that conviction and that the aggravated felony bar should not apply retroactively to his case. The Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the 1990 version of § 212(c) bars relief after five years' imprisonment for an aggravated felony, that the expanded definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively, and that a prior waiver does not expunge the conviction for future immigration purposes. The court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the denial of motions to remand or close proceedings.

immigrationcriminal law

Paul Wozny pleaded no contest in Wisconsin state court to three sexual offenses involving children and received a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment plus extended supervision. After exhausting state remedies, he petitioned for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending that his pleas were invalid because they were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to alleged deficiencies in the plea colloquy, timing pressures, and confusion over read-in charges. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, concluding that the state courts reasonably applied federal constitutional standards when they credited the plea-hearing transcript showing Wozny’s affirmations of understanding and voluntariness and discredited his later contradictory testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

Angela Tyson, a mailer assistant at Gannett's Indianapolis Star newspaper, sued her employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII alleging race discrimination after she was not permitted to return to work from June to November 2003 while subject to a 25-pound lifting restriction following injuries. The district court granted summary judgment to Gannett, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Tyson failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not identify a similarly situated white employee who was treated more favorably; the proposed comparator had greater seniority under the union collective bargaining agreement, which governed task assignments and allowed more senior employees to select less physically demanding work. Differences in seniority meant the employees were not similarly situated in all material respects.

civil rightslabor & employment

Terrance Robinson pleaded guilty to seven counts of bank fraud for organizing a scheme to manufacture and cash counterfeit checks using real bank routing numbers and victim account information across multiple states. The district court sentenced him to 63 months' imprisonment, applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) for using sophisticated means along with other adjustments. Robinson appealed, challenging the sophisticated-means enhancement as duplicative or unwarranted for conduct he described as only slightly unusual. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, reasoning that printing a phone number on the checks that routed calls to Robinson for personal verification showed greater planning and concealment than typical fraud schemes, and that any factual overlap with the leadership-role enhancement did not preclude both adjustments.

criminal law

The case involved Kerry Magers, a federal inmate in Indiana, who was charged with sending threatening letters containing a powdery substance to the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of Canada, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(c), 876(c), and 871(a). A jury convicted him on all counts after the district court found him competent to stand trial based on a psychiatric evaluation, and the government presented handwriting expert testimony linking the letters to Magers along with evidence they were written on prison forms. Magers's counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw on appeal, identifying potential issues including competency, jury instructions, search and seizure, and sufficiency of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the record and concluded that all potential arguments were frivolous, as the competency finding was supported by the evidence, the instructions were accurate, the Fourth Amendment does not apply in prison cells, and the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and granted the motion to withdraw.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Fuller and Brian Johnson, who were convicted after a jury trial of participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy distributing cocaine and crack in the Chicago suburbs between 2000 and 2004. The convictions rested on testimony from the conspiracy leader, Rodney Bew, who detailed their roles as purchaser and deliveryman, along with wiretap recordings and Johnson's grand jury admissions. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Fuller's conviction and sentence after finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing. The court denied Johnson's counsel's Anders motion to withdraw, concluding that a non-frivolous issue existed as to whether the district court had properly considered the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

criminal law

In United States v. Chavers, Reginald Chavers was charged with knowingly attempting to bring a loaded firearm on an airplane in violation of federal law after airport screeners found a loaded pistol and extra ammunition in his checked luggage. He pleaded guilty but later moved to withdraw the plea, claiming he did not know the gun was loaded at the time and that his prior counsel was ineffective. The district court denied the motion to withdraw after finding that Chavers had knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea during a proper Rule 11 colloquy. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Chavers failed to show a fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea and that the district court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the motion.

criminal lawguns

In United States v. Hankton and Davis, two defendants who had pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute appealed their 300-month and 210-month sentences after a remand under United States v. Paladino to determine whether the district court would impose the same sentences with the guidelines now advisory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both sentences as reasonable. The court explained that sentences within a properly calculated guidelines range are presumptively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district judge had stated he would have given identical sentences post-Booker, and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption by showing that the sentences were unreasonable when measured against the statutory factors. The opinion rejected Davis's specific arguments that the court misunderstood its authority or that his drug addiction and other personal circumstances warranted a lower sentence.

criminal law

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Herman Herkert against Mazer-Stauber Associates, P.C., Guardian Corporation, and individual defendants over a 1975 agreement to design and construct an 8-unit elderly housing project in Wisconsin, financed by a Farmers Home Administration loan. The contract made the agreement contingent on obtaining FmHA approval and financing, with M-S Associates responsible for preparing application documents, but the project shifted to a larger HUD-FmHA plan before financing was secured. After a jury found a breach and awarded $7,500 in damages, the trial court increased the award to $50,400 as a matter of law and entered judgment against all defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, citing waiver of certain arguments like frustration of purpose and individual liability. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the increase in damages was proper, that some issues were waived on appeal, and that individual liability could not be imposed as a matter of law because the contract did not involve professional services.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Callaway, the defendant was arrested pursuant to an outstanding traffic warrant while driving a vehicle; after he declined to arrange alternative removal, police impounded the car and conducted a standard inventory search that located marijuana in the unlocked glove compartment. The trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling the impoundment and search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the court of appeals affirmed on those grounds while also finding the state had waived any standing challenge. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the impoundment and inventory were reasonable because they followed established police procedures designed to protect the vehicle owner's property as well as the police and public, and that the defendant had standing to contest the search.

criminal lawprocedure