Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Kyle Quentin Sago shot and killed Daniel Morgan, who was unarmed, after returning to Morgan’s residence in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Sago admitted to the shooting during his testimony at trial, stating he acted out of fear. Initially, Sago entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to second-degree murder, but the district court rejected the plea after determining the facts met the requirements for premeditated first-degree murder. Sago subsequently withdrew his guilty plea and proceeded to trial, where he was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree murder, felon in possession of ammunition, and causing death with a firearm. At trial, Sago’s counsel conceded Sago was the shooter and focused on contesting premeditation, seeking a conviction for second-degree rather than first-degree murder. Sago testified, admitted to the shooting and prior felonies, and the jury convicted him on all counts.After sentencing, Sago appealed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed his convictions and sentence. The appellate court found no error in the district court’s refusal to instruct on imperfect self-defense and determined there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Sago then filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his motion, holding that his counsel did not fail to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing and that Sago did not meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of Sago’s § 2255 motion. The court held that neither structural error under McCoy v. Louisiana nor presumed prejudice under United States v. Cronic applied because Sago did not object contemporaneously to his counsel’s strategy and counsel did not entirely fail to contest guilt. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sago’s motion. View "United States v. Sago" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a shooting at a homeless encampment in Tulsa, Oklahoma, resulting in the death of one individual and serious injury to another. The incident followed a dispute regarding stolen property, with witnesses testifying that the defendant fired shots into tents after a confrontation. The police recovered shell casings and matched them to a firearm later found in the possession of another individual, which was confirmed to belong to the defendant. Witness testimony indicated the defendant claimed he was shot at first, but no firearm was found at the scene associated with the victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial, where a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and carrying and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of a tribal database screenshot to prove Indian status, the inclusion of certain language in the self-defense instruction, and the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the government must disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s admission of the tribal database record and its self-defense instruction, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error. However, it held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the government must disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, violating due process. The court remanded with instructions to vacate the murder conviction (Count One) and ordered further proceedings, while affirming the remaining convictions. View "United States v. Lynn" on Justia Law

The case concerns a woman who had a long-term affair with her employer, a dentist who was later investigated for the murder of his wife while on safari in Zambia. The woman had received substantial financial support from the dentist over several years, including after the wife’s death. She was present at events and conversations indicating she knew details about the crime, including an incident where the dentist openly confessed the murder to her in a public setting.After the murder, law enforcement began investigating the dentist. The woman testified before a federal grand jury investigating the incident. During her testimony, she was questioned about the financial gifts she received and whether the dentist had proclaimed his innocence to her regarding the FBI investigation. She responded that she did not know why the dentist was so generous and that he “probably” proclaimed his innocence, though she claimed not to recall specifics.A grand jury indicted the woman on five counts of perjury, one count of accessory after the fact to foreign murder, and one count of obstruction of justice, based on her grand jury testimony. After a joint trial with the dentist, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado convicted her on two counts of perjury, accessory after the fact, and obstruction. Her post-trial motions were denied, and she was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated one perjury conviction, finding insufficient evidence that her statements about not knowing the dentist’s motives were knowingly false. The court affirmed her remaining convictions, holding that lying to a grand jury to protect another can constitute accessory after the fact, and that obstruction of justice is not a lesser-included offense of perjury. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "United States v. Milliron" on Justia Law

A young girl, identified as H.M., moved in with her uncle and aunt in Oklahoma in 2014. Both caretakers, the uncle (a member of the Cherokee Nation) and his wife (a non-Indian), became the subject of concern when, in 2019, H.M., then nine years old, fled their home. She was found malnourished, unwashed, and exhibiting signs of physical and emotional abuse, including weight loss and injuries. Subsequent investigation revealed a long period of severe abuse and neglect.A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Oklahoma indicted both caretakers on charges of child abuse and child neglect under Oklahoma law, with federal jurisdiction arising under statutes applicable to Indian country. The uncle was charged under the Major Crimes Act, while the aunt was charged via the Assimilative Crimes Act and the General Crimes Act. Both were also charged with aiding and abetting each other. After a joint jury trial, both were found guilty of child abuse and child neglect. The aunt unsuccessfully moved post-trial to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for a new trial. At sentencing, the uncle received 180 months and the aunt 240 months in prison, based on sentencing calculations that did not apply a particular federal sentencing guideline.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in calculating the uncle’s advisory sentencing range because it failed to apply the most analogous federal guideline—aggravated assault under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2—to the Oklahoma child abuse conviction. This was deemed procedural error warranting resentencing. The Tenth Circuit vacated the uncle’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, but affirmed all other convictions and the aunt’s sentence, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, jurisdictional rulings, or the handling of sentencing evidence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A Colorado dentist operated his practice using an abusive trust-based tax scheme promoted by a third party. Over seven years, he funneled earnings through a series of sham trusts to disguise income and claim personal expenses as tax deductions. The scheme involved assigning most of his business to a trust, which distributed income through family and charitable trusts, ultimately allowing him to retain control over his earnings without paying taxes. Despite repeated warnings from professionals, the defendant persisted. He continued the scheme even after being notified of a criminal investigation, resulting in over $1.6 million in tax losses to the government.A federal grand jury indicted him for six counts of tax evasion, one for each year from 2017 to 2022. He pleaded guilty to all counts in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. At sentencing, the court calculated the total loss—including uncharged conduct from 2016 and 2023—and determined the base offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court added a two-level enhancement for the use of sophisticated means and considered mitigating factors such as acceptance of responsibility and zero-point offender status. The advisory guidelines range was set at 33–41 months, and the court imposed a sentence at the top end: 41 months’ imprisonment, supervised release, restitution, and a fine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. The court held that including the 2023 tax loss and applying the sophisticated means enhancement were proper under the Guidelines. It also found the sentence substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Ulibarri" on Justia Law

The case involves a criminal prosecution for sexual abuse of a minor on a military base. The defendant admitted to sexual activity but claimed he was asleep during the acts, raising a sexsomnia defense. The central dispute at trial concerned the defendant’s state of mind, specifically whether he was awake or asleep. Both sides presented expert witnesses. The defense expert, Dr. Kushida, opined that the victim’s account was consistent with sexsomnia, while the government’s expert, Dr. Bornemann, countered that the described actions were too complex to have occurred during sleep. During trial, Dr. Kushida also offered new opinions about the absence of malingering—suggesting the defendant was not faking symptoms for personal gain—which had not been disclosed before trial.The case was previously tried in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. At trial, after Dr. Kushida introduced the new malingering opinions, the government sought to have Dr. Bornemann rebut them. The defense objected to the adequacy and timing of the government’s disclosure regarding Dr. Bornemann’s new rebuttal opinions. The district court overruled the objection, allowed Dr. Bornemann’s testimony, and permitted a brief pre-cross-examination interview. The jury convicted the defendant on the counts related to sexual encounters in the girl’s bedroom.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the government was required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 to provide pretrial notice of the rebuttal opinions offered by Dr. Bornemann. The court held that the government’s duty to disclose rebuttal expert testimony is triggered only when the defense has timely disclosed the opinions being rebutted. Because the defense had not disclosed Dr. Kushida’s malingering opinions prior to trial, the government was not required to provide pretrial notice of Dr. Bornemann’s rebuttal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Crow" on Justia Law

A man drove his ten-year-old daughter from Oklahoma to Texas so she could participate in a gymnastics competition. While staying in a hotel together, he sexually abused her in the bathtub and later in bed. After the girl disclosed the abuse to her peers, three others—two of her half-sisters and her uncle, all minors at the time of their respective incidents—came forward with their own accounts of sexual abuse or inappropriate conduct by the same man. The evidence included testimony about prior incidents and hidden cameras used by the defendant to record his daughters.A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma charged the defendant with three crimes: transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 2241(c), and coercion and enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). After a jury trial, he was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to life imprisonment for each, to run concurrently. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for transportation of a minor and aggravated sexual abuse, arguing specifically that the government failed to prove that his “dominant purpose” in transporting his daughter was sexual activity and failed to establish his non-Indian status.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that, under § 2423(a), the government must prove only that the defendant transported the minor “with intent” that she engage in illegal sexual activity, not that this was his dominant purpose, and found the evidence sufficient. The court also held that unchallenged testimonial evidence from family members was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant with a longstanding history of mental illness and violent behavior, who was indicted in federal court for mailing threatening communications to a former prosecutor. The defendant’s mental health history included diagnoses such as psychosis and bipolar disorder, and he had been incarcerated for nearly two decades. After the indictment, both parties questioned the defendant’s competence to stand trial due to his mental condition.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado first found the defendant incompetent and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment in an attempt to restore competency under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Medical staff at the hospital later reported that competency appeared to have been restored with medication, but after release from the hospital, the defendant ceased taking his prescribed drugs. Before a formal competency-restoration hearing could be held, both parties again concluded that the defendant was incompetent. After a hearing, the district court found the defendant incompetent and unrestorable for trial. The government then moved to hospitalize him for a dangerousness evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, which the defendant opposed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The appellate court affirmed the portion of the order hospitalizing the defendant for a precertification dangerousness evaluation under § 4246(a), holding that once a defendant is found incompetent and unrestorable, the district court may order temporary hospitalization for evaluation of dangerousness. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s order for a formal examination and report under § 4246(b), holding that only the court in the district of the evaluating hospital has authority for such an order. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Coad" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was discovered inside a stranger’s apartment in Oklahoma City. After being confronted by the resident, a physical altercation ensued and the defendant fled. The resident claimed that the defendant pulled a gun and fired at him as he was chased outside. Although no firearm was recovered, police found a recently fired shell casing at the scene. Video evidence and witness testimony corroborated the sequence of events. The defendant was subsequently arrested after a foot chase, and a grand jury indicted him for possessing ammunition as a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under Rule 404(b), which the defendant opposed. The district court admitted the evidence over objection, provided a limiting instruction, and the jury found the defendant guilty. The presentence report calculated a guideline range of 63 to 78 months; however, the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 120 months, citing the seriousness and repetitive nature of the defendant’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the admission of the prior conviction was an abuse of discretion because knowledge was not at issue under the circumstances, but found the error harmless due to the strength of the evidence. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the sentence was substantively reasonable, and the argument that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was foreclosed by binding precedent. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dias" on Justia Law

Brandon and Rachel McCarthy operated an online business, Lone Goose Bakery, selling unprocessed poppy seeds coated in opium latex. These seeds, not processed to food-grade standards, retained opium alkaloids, including morphine, codeine, and thebaine. The McCarthys primarily sold to individual consumers and provided publications with guidance and recipes for brewing poppy-seed tea, which can contain significant amounts of these controlled substances and poses substantial health risks. At least one customer died from an overdose after consuming tea made from their seeds.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma returned a superseding indictment against the McCarthys, charging them with multiple counts, some for distributing or possessing controlled substances and others for distributing or possessing “precursors” for controlled substances. The defendants moved to dismiss all charges, arguing that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excludes poppy seeds, that any ambiguity should be resolved in their favor, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague if read to prohibit their conduct. The district court granted the motion, including as to counts based on the theory that the unprocessed seeds were precursors for manufacturing controlled substances.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that, while poppy seeds are excluded from the controlled substances schedule, the CSA prohibits the knowing distribution or possession of materials intended to be used to manufacture controlled substances. The court held that unprocessed poppy seeds coated with opium latex constitute a “material” that may be used to manufacture a controlled substance when intended for extraction of opiates. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the related charges and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McCarthy" on Justia Law