We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

What’s Mine Is Mine…

The presentence report is one of the most valuable documents an inmate can have access to in working on post-conviction motions, as well as on prison-related issues. It controls access to drug programs, halfway house, earned time credits… just about everything that the BOP mandates or prohibits is based on what staff can glean from the presentence report.

The BOP does not permit you to keep a copy in your legal materials, but that does not mean you cannot have one at home.

More than one prisoner has run into a prior attorney saying he or she is not allowed to provide the PSR to a defendant. That happened to Kevin Marvin, whose judge had a policy that a defendant could go over his or her PSR, but was not allowed to have a copy. Kevin’s lawyer obeyed the judge, but at sentencing, Kevin complained to the judge that he wanted a copy of his PSR. She turned him down, saying, “There is confidential information in the PSR that would be harmful” to Kevin and his family if it were made public.

Last week, the 7th Circuit ruled that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(2) requires a probation officer to give the PSR to “the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and an attorney for the government at least 35 days before sentencing.” And “give” means “give—that is, transfer—the PSR to not only the defendant’s attorney, but also the defendant. Under its plain meaning, the rule cannot be satisfied by giving the PSR only to the defendant’s and government’s attorneys; the probation office also must also give the PSR to the defendant.”

The Circuit noted that a defendant’s possession of a PSR in prison could be dangerous, and suggested a district court could put reasonable limits on possession. But a blanket prohibition of a defendant possessing his or her PSR violates Rule 32(e)(2).

United States v. Melvin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2262 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2020)

I Promise to Do Whatever

New York assemblyman Nathan Silver was convicted of seven counts of Hobbs Act extortion under color of right and honest services fraud. The evidence on three of the counts was that in exchange for payments, he promised to take action favorable to the people bribing him “as the opportunity arose.”

The three counts accused Nathan of taking bribes in exchange for agreeing to help out on whatever he might be able to do for the payors in the future. The Circuit said that while bribery does not “require identification of a particular act of influence, we do agree that it requires identification of a particular question or matter to be influenced. In other words, a public official must do more than just promise to take some or any official action beneficial to the payor as the opportunity to do so arises; she must promise to take official action on a particular question or matter as the opportunity to influence that same question or matter arises.”

United States v. Silver, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1737 (2nd Cir Jan 21, 2020)

Thank You For Your Service

Three 6th Circuit Judges who never served a day of their lives in the armed forces, let alone ever got shot at, reversed a one-day sentence imposed on a defendant who showed that his child pornography offense was a result of the horrific combat PTSD he suffered from the Iraq war.

The defendant’s Guidelines base offense level was 15, to which the same enhancements that affect virtually every child porn defendant were added, yielding a Guideline sentencing range of 78-87 months.

The district court rejected the enhancements, complaining that “everyone” who is brought into federal court for possessing child porn receives the same enhancements, which “makes it impossible to distinguish between individual defendants.” But the Circuit held the district court failed to consider “the retributive purposes” of the enhancements, and “its disagreement with the Guidelines cannot justify its decision to ignore the delineated enhancements.”

What’s more, the 6th said, the sentence was substantively unreasonable. “By focusing on the defendant’s PTSD diagnosis to the exclusion of other considerations,” the Circuit said, “the district court failed to acknowledge analogous cases within this circuit… and cast the defendant more as the victim than the perpetrator, stating that his crimes were ‘the result of his voluntary service to his community and his country’ and ‘an unintended consequence’ of his decision to serve in the Army.” Dismissing the science found to apply by the District Court, the appellate panel opined that ‘knowing possession of child pornography… is not a crime that just happens to a defendant’.”

The defendant will return to the District Court for resentencing.

United States v. Demma, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2326 (6th Cir Jan 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root