It’s been a busy week in the federal circuits – lots of good wins to check out.
Also, while I’m shamelessly pimping, please check out an article I wrote for the National Law Journal here about DOJ prosecutions, pleas, and why the law ought to be clearer.
To the victories!
John Doe (not his real name – but the guy shouldn’t be singled out any more than he already has been. If you really want to see his name, it’s on the opinion from the Fourth Circuit) wanted to have gay sex with a stranger.
Instead of going online like a normal person, he went to a national park in North Carolina. Mr. Doe was in his sixties – apparently baby boomers don’t use Grindr.
Mr. Doe was not the only person in the park looking for men who were looking to have sex with strangers. In response to a complete absence of real crime anywhere in North Carolina, law enforcement was there too.
Apologies for posting so sparsely lately. Between covering the end of the Supreme Court term for Above the Law (see posts here or here if you’d like) and this day job as a lawyer, I’ve been remiss in keeping you up to date on what’s what in the circuits.
Today, please find the Short Wins for the last two weeks. My personal favorite is United States v. Huizar-Velazquez because there simply isn’t enough law on criminal importation of wire hangars.
Today’s featured case is United States v. Hampton for a few reasons.
First, it’s from the DC Circuit, and my office is in DC – our Circuit’s pro-defendant decisions are particularly exciting (to me).
Second, it involves law enforcement agents offering expert testimony. Law enforcement testimony is massively frustrating – it feels, at times, that there no bounds to what an FBI Agent will testify about.
I’m writing this from the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. Here’s my brief recap.
Today, Brian Stevenson, a tremendously cool death penalty lawyer told the assembled group that justice for poor folks and people of color is going to be more likely if decision makers are in closer proximity to poor folks and people of color.
Yesterday, there was a talk about how to improve your home security, to keep any one who wants to get in proximity to you from doing so.
There’s a great diversity of cases where defendants won in the federal circuit’s last week.
Probably the most significant – in terms of it’s implication for other cases, is the discovery dispute in United States v. Muniz-Jaquez from the Ninth Circuit.
Though, of course, it’s still from the Ninth Circuit.
There were three wins in the federal circuits last week, discussed below. The most interesting is probably United States v. Zabawa which gives a fair shake at sentencing to someone who assaulted an officer (who headbutted him).
It reminds me of a joke Bill Clinton liked to tell during the impeachment:
A kid comes home from school with a black eye. His mom asked what happened. The kid says, “Mom, it all started when the other guy hit back.”
Last week, with the Memorial Day holiday, was a slow week for wins in the federal circuits- there’s only one short win.
Monday, of course, was a huge day for the government’s ability to collect massive amounts of data about the citizenry. I mean, of course, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Maryland v. King.
There are some dramatic wins in the federal appeals courts. Sometimes an entire conviction is overturned, and it is clear that the person will walk free. Other times, a large and unjust sentence is reversed.
And then there are this week’s “wins”. In one, a former judge, convicted of fraud, will have the total punishment imposed on him reduced by $100 – the cost of the Special Assessment that was imposed on a count that exceeded the statute of limitations.
In another, the district court imposed a condition of supervised release ordering treatment for a gambling addiction in the Judgment following the sentencing hearing, but not at the hearing itself. So the case will go back for a sentencing hearing where the judge can say that the person is going to be going to treatment for gambling addiction to the person’s face.