Articles Tagged with “Obstruction of Justice”

Published on:

If a defendant takes the stand during a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, or during a trial, and provides testimony that is materially false, it can form the basis for a two point sentencing guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice. In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dunnigan, stated that when deciding whether to apply this enhancement, the court must use the federal perjury statute (18 U.S.C. 1621) as a guide. The trial court must review the evidence and make an independent finding that material testimony was not only false but also intentionally misleading.

In a December 9, 2015 opinion entitled U.S. v. Thompson, the Second Circuit granted the Defendant’s appeal and found that the district trial judge failed to make a finding of specific intent to obstruct justice by simply adopting the general conclusions of the pre sentencing report.

When the DEA executed an arrest warrant for Thompson, he allegedly consented to a search of his home. Later he was indicted for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances. Thompson challenged the search of his home seeking to suppress the digital scales and cash recovered. During an evidentiary hearing Thompson testified that the DEA agents said that if he did not consent to searching his home, his sister and girlfriend would be arrested thereby improperly coercing his consent. Continue reading →

Published on:

The big news in this batch of opinions is not the conspiracy to import lobsters case, but, rather the Barry Bonds appeal.

Mr. Bonds was prosecuted for evading a prosecutor’s questions while testifying in a grand jury. And, now, thanks to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, his conviction was reversed because giving a nonresponsive answer is not a crime. Though just about any teenager could tell you that.

To the victories:

you win.jpg1. United States v. Bengis, Second Circuit: Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to import lobsters from South African waters in violation of both South African and U.S. law. The district court imposed a restitution order, holding each of the Appellants jointly and severally liable for the market value of all of the lobsters harvested. The Second Circuit reversed the order as to one of the Appellants, who had joined the conspiracy later than the others. The court held that the Appellant was only liable for the value of lobsters taken before he joined the conspiracy if he knew, or reasonably should have known, about the conspiracy’s past imports. The court remanded for the district court to make this determination.

2. United States v. Sandidge, Seventh Circuit: After Appellant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the sentencing court imposed several standard and special conditions of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit vacated all of these conditions because the sentencing court offered no explanation as to their propriety, and conducted no review of the statutory sentencing factors. The court noted that several of the conditions were too vague, including requirements that Appellant meet “family responsibilities” and “not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity.” The court also noted that several conditions were broader than necessary, such as a requirement not to “consume . . . any mood-altering substances.” The court remanded for resentencing on the issue of conditions of supervised release.

Continue reading →

Published on:

And, after a really long break, we’re back. Apologies. This day job has been very busy lately.

And, of course, if you ever find yourself jonesing for my writing, you can always check out my stuff on Above the Law.

You saw our guest post on Hite last week – it’s a great case that bears a close read.

Published on:

In this edition, I think the most interesting case (of a number of interesting cases) is United States v. Garcia.

There, the government had an agent testify as an expert. The Fourth Circuit reversed, because the agent’s “expert testimony” exceeded the bounds of what counts as expert testimony.

The way agents get qualified as experts is, often, nuts. It’s good to see the Fourth Circuit rolling it back.

Published on:

There are some great cases from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits this week – especially United States v. Ermoian on obstruction of justice. Good times.

And, of course, the big news of last week was Eric Holder’s recognition that there are a lot of people in federal prison. I’m skeptical that a policy that lets folks with one or two criminal history points avoid a mandatory minimum is going to do much to reduce our prison population, as I told some folks last week, but if the Attorney General is going to pay lip service to an idea, I suppose I’m glad it’s an idea that I agree with.

To the victories!

Published on:

It’s a good week for violent crime in the federal circuits – a robbery case from the First Circuit and an assault in Indian country winding up in the Ninth Circuit. And both resulted in a defendant-friendly remand. Go federal appeals courts!

Though I suppose the big news from last’s week’s defense wins in the federal appeals courts is the Third Circuit’s United States v. Reynolds. There, the Third Circuit struck down a conviction for failing to register as a sex offender because the Attorney General’s rule that applied SORNA (the federal statute that federalizes sex offender registry – because Congress thinks there simply cannot be enough federal criminal statutes) wasn’t totally compliant with notice and comment rulemaking, in as much as there wasn’t an opportunity for notice and comment on the rule before it was made.

It’s a great issue – kudos to the Third Circuit for thinking the APA is the law even when it applies to people accused of crimes.

Published on:

One of the trickiest problems in a criminal trial, in federal court or any other court, is determining if the person accused of a crime should testify.

On one hand, the jurors instinctively want to hear what the person has to say. They’re instructed not to hold it against him if he doesn’t testify, but, as a matter of human psychology, people want the guy who just sat and listened to others say bad things about him to say something back.

Dice.jpgAnd, of course, the person on trial may have something useful to say in his own defense.