United States v. Karst, No. 18-3675 (7th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Leaving an untouched pizza on the table, Karst exited a restaurant with two men who wore Mesticas motorcycle club vests. The three drove off on their bikes. Minutes later, one of the men with Karst pulled the trigger in a drive‐by shooting. Karst was on supervised release. A magistrate judge vacated a petition to revoke supervised release. A district judge reinstated the proceedings. After a final hearing, Karst received 30 more months of imprisonment.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Karst did not show that the lack of a preliminary hearing affected his substantial rights. At the final revocation hearing, Karst had a full opportunity to contest the facts; his counsel cross‐examined the only adverse witness, and Karst testified. Karst remained free for three months between the dismissal of the petition and its resolution at the final hearing. Karst admitted the written revocation petition provided him adequate notice; the district court’s statement that Karst “conspired as a party to a crime to conduct this drive‐by shooting or the shooting of another person” was sufficient to notify him of the violative crime. On remand, the district court should consider Karst’s arguments in mitigation: that he had a minimal role in the crime, that he had adjusted to supervision and stayed out of “trouble” for years since his release, that he “did not know this was going to happen,” and that he tried to cooperate with the police.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.