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 something for everyone.
Anyway, it’s been a good week in the circuits.
Here are my two favorite cases from the last week:
In United States v. Tavera the Sixth Circuit had some trouble disclosing statements that tended to show that the defendant was not actually guilty. Here’s the quotable gem: “This case shows once again how prosecutors substitute their own judgment of the defendant’s guilt for that of the jury.”
Also, in United States v. Rojas the Eleventh Circuit kicked a marriage fraud conviction on statute of limitations grounds.
To the victories!
1. United States v. Gillenwater, Ninth Circuit: The district court erred in finding appellant incompetent to stand trial because, at the competency hearing, appellant was denied his constitutional right to testify. This error was not harmless because the court did not know what the appellant would have testified about.
2. United States v. Hernandez-Meza, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for illegal reentry was dismissed because it was in violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Further, the court abused its discretion when it let the government reopen its case-in-chief to present evidence that had not been produced in discovery to rebut appellant’s defense. The case was remanded for a hearing to determine whether the prosecution willfully failed to disclose the evidence and, if so, to impose sanctions.
3. United States v. Rojas, Eleventh Circuit: The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss his marriage fraud indictment on statute of limitations grounds. Because that crime is complete on the date of the marriage, the government’s indictment was barred by the five-year limitations period. The trial court’s ruling was reversed and the case remanded.
4. United States v. Tang, Fifth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender after traveling in interstate commerce. He appealed some conditions of his supervised release, including a ban on Internet use and a restriction on dating people with minor children. The internet restriction was vacated because it was not reasonably related to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. The dating restriction was vacated because that restriction from the written judgment was not part of the oral pronouncement of sentence.
5. United States v. Tavera, Sixth Circuit: Appellant, along with a co-defendant, was convicted of participating in a drug conspiracy. During plea negotiations, the co-defendant told the government’s lawyer in appellant’s case that appellant had no knowledge of the conspiracy. The prosecutor never disclosed these statements to appellant. The prosecutor’s failure to disclose the statements resulted in a due process violation. As a result, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
6. United States v. Valerio, Eleventh Circuit: The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence that led to his arrest for growing marijuana because the officers’ Terry stop and subsequent seizure was unauthorized by the Fourth Amendment. Appellant’s conviction was vacated.
7. United States v. Vazquez, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 144 months. He received an additional point in his guidelines range calculation based on his conviction for “driving while license suspended.” That conviction should not have been counted because he was not sentenced to probation for more than one year or to prison for at least 30 days. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded.