It’s a been a relatively quiet week in the federal circuits. Which is one reason I think this week is a nice one to share this very cool graphic on how forfeiture laws are hurting people in these United States.
Forfeiture is insane. It reminds me too much of the California prison industry lobbying for tough on crime laws – the incentives simply line up wrong (it’s a long chart – the short wins are at the bottom).
Here’s the chart:
Please include attribution to ArrestRecords.com with this graphic.
, an infographic from ArrestRecords.com
To the victories!
1. United States v. Ferguson, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was deemed to have violated his supervised release based on possession of marijuana. Because the district court based that finding in part on a laboratory report that was prepared by a forensic examiner who did not testify, the sentence was vacated and remanded.
Attorneys: Nia Ayanna Vidal and Michael S. Nachmanoff
2. United States v. Villegas Palacios, Fifth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to reentry of a deported alien. He was denied a one-level reduction in the sentencing guidelines because he refused to waive his right to appeal. An amendment to the sentencing guidelines became effective after Appellant’s sentencing but pending appeal. Those guidelines apply and require the one point reduction.
3. Vega v. Ryan, Ninth Circuit: The court reversed a denial of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction for sexual abuse. Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to review the Petitioner’s file and interview a witness who would say the victim recanted the allegations. This was objectively unreasonable and had a reasonable probability of affecting the result of the proceedings.
Attorney: Patricia A. Taylor
4. United States v. Isaacson, Eleventh Circuit: After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit securities fraud. His sentence included 36 months’ imprisonment and $8 million in restitution. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded because the government did not carry its burden in attributing losses to Appellant’s participation in the conspiracy. This affected both a sentencing enhancement for loss amount as well as the amount of restitution owed.