Published on:

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.

Published on:

There was only one win in the federal circuits last week, but United States v. Blewett was a whopper – the Sixth Circuit held that the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to people sentenced before it took effect. Here’s the best language:

In this case, we hold, inter alia, that the federal judicial perpetuation of the racially discriminatory mandatory minimum crack sentences for those defendants sentenced under the old crack sentencing law, as the government advocates, would violate the Equal Protection Clause, as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment by the doctrine of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (Fifth Amendment forbids federal racial discrimination in the same way as the Fourteenth Amendment forbids state racial discrimination).

In unrelated news, the New York Times had an excellent editorial (available here subject to the Times kind of annoying content restriction thing – private browsing anyone?) on Brady and criminal discovery.

Published on:

Hiring is always hard, especially in a small office.

You have work that needs to be done. You can’t do it all. Maybe you’re a professional, like a doctor, and some of the work isn’t the best use of your time.

So you hire someone to help. Really, how much do you know about a person as the result of a hiring process? Yet, despite that, you give them responsibility over a portion of your business.

Published on:

Most people who are accused of a crime in federal court are unable to pay for a lawyer and have one appointed for them.

Which makes sense – a decent lawyer for a federal criminal case is expensive, the need to find a lawyer is urgent, and most people don’t have substantial liquid assets to hire one quickly.

Most people, then, are represented by either a federal public defender or an appointed attorney.

Published on:

There was only one published criminal case in the federal circuits last week where the defendant won. It’s a good case on jury instructions for missing evidence, and the short write up is below.

In other news – I stumbled across this lovely write up of a Medicare Fraud prosecution by a doctor.

I often am talking to people who are amazed at how the federal criminal justice system works when they encounter it for the first time. The article is titled “Is a charting error a federal crime?” (spoiler alert: the author thinks that it is, but shouldn’t be)

Published on:

Six new cases from the federal circuits this week. My favorite – a subjective measure, I know – is United States v. Ramirez. Any time a court, even the Ninth Circuit, vacates a drug conspiracy conviction for insufficient evidence it’s worth a read.

Last week I posted about a First Circuit case that raised, I thought, a specter of support for jury nullification. Lots of folks responded to that – it turns out that nullification is a popular topic.

On Twitter, I was directed to this recent opinion out of New Mexico on nullification. If you have time, I highly recommend it. It canvasses the history of nullification as an important part of what our criminal justice system is built on then says, basically, no.

Published on:

We have too many federal criminal laws – more than 4,000. And, as frequent readers of this blog will note, there are times when the federal government prosecutes a person that is a close call – it may or may not be a crime.

673264_hammer_to_fall.jpgFor example, in United States v. Costello, the government prosecuted a woman for giving her boyfriend a ride from the bus station on the theory that this was “harboring” an illegal alien. (read my prior write-up on the case here).

In marginal cases like these, the defense normally argues that this is government overreaching. The government normally brushes aside this argument saying, in essence, “trust us.” “We,” the government continues, “have scarce resources and good judgment. We won’t prosecute anyone except for really bad people.”

Published on:

There are a handful of resentencing remands in the federal courts last week.

Perhaps most interesting is United States v. Francois, remanding because the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum. One doesn’t see that too often (though it’s preserved in even the most aggressive appeal waivers – I think of it as a theoretical thing rather than a real meaningful risk, but, hey, last week was the week.).

To the victories!

Published on:

October 29, 2007 started bad for Cortez Fisher.

He walked out of his house and the Baltimore police approached him (he lived in Baltimore). They asked to talk to him. He said no. He tried to drive away, but backed into a cop car.

He was arrested and searched – they found empty glass vials in his pants pocket.

Published on:

Many white-collar cases start the same way – a person is an entrepreneur. He has a vision for a business he’d like to build. He wants to do great things and reform an industry.

Things are going well, but he wants to move to that next level. Getting to the next level – whatever it is – takes a little faith, a little elbow grease, and, sometimes, a few cut corners.

The trouble with cutting corners is that once you start to cut them, then get hard to uncut. The corner cutting gets baked into your business model. At some point, the cost of fixing the corner cutting exceeds what you think you can spend on it.