All posts by lisa-legalinfo

7th Circuit Levels the Field for Inmate Medical Claims – Update for January 27, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
YOU’VE GOT NOTHING COMING

nothing170127Lousy healthcare ranks just behind lousy food as an inmate complaint, but when the effects of substandard medical attention are considered, it is perhaps the most significant beef inmates have. We have worked with inmates who were blinded, paralyzed and stricken with terminal cancer because of incompetent or indifferent medical attention in prison.

The Federal Tort Claims Act permits inmates to sue for medical malpractice, with the law applied being the law in which the prison is located. Of course, a federal inmate has no access to state law, no right to an appointed attorney, and no right to the assistance of medical experts. The prison healthcare people, on the other hand, are represented by the civil desk of the United States Attorney’s Office, a “law firm” staffed by some pretty skilled attorneys backed by a client with an unlimited budget and a disinclination to settle. It’s little wonder that even the most patent case of medical malpractice in the federal prison system rarely goes the inmates’ way.

That’s why we were so surprised and pleased this week to see the 7th Circuit come down resoundingly on the side of an Indiana state prison inmate who had been beaten down by the system. First, prison healthcare let an ingrown toenail result in a lifetime of migraine headaches and soft foods (itself an amazing and appalling medical result). Then, the pro se inmate suffered nine years of being buffeted by the legal system.

Tom James was in an Indiana prison when he began suffering from an ingrown toenail. He sought medical help for it, but the doctor dithered as prison medical staff are wont to do. Tom got some drugs, and then some more drugs, and finally – after a month – the doc removed the nail.

crazydoc170127The biggest problem with prison medical services, in our experience, is not that the care is substandard. It often is, but that’s not the principal problem. The real difficulty is that the medical staff stalls, equivocates, denies and procrastinates until problems that could have been solved quickly and cheaply turn into existential crises.

That’s what happened here. By the time the nail was pulled, Tom was limping badly because of the pain and taking opioids for pain. The combination of a narcotic stupor and a bad limp resulted in Tom falling on the steps of the housing unit and breaking his jaw. Three times he sought emergency treatment of the jaw, to no avail. About a month later his jaw cracked while he was eating. X-rays revealed a fractured left jaw, but because so much time had passed, surgery could not correct the problem. Tom was put on a diet of soft food for the rest of his life.

medmal170127Tom sued the prison and a number of doctors for malpractice and 8th Amendment violations, claiming that they had been deliberately indifferent to his infected toenail and broken jaw. Years later, he suffers pain and temporomandibular joint dysfunction from the jaw injury.

The district judge eventually dismissed all the defendants except two doctors who had treated Tom (and we use the term “treated” loosely). Tom asked the court for a lawyer, because he was now doing time in Arizona and suffering from daily migraine headaches. He also asked for a medical expert to assist him in his case, and added that he had limited access to legal materials, limited education, and no litigation experience, and that he had tried to obtain a lawyer but had not succeeded.

The district judge was not impressed. He said Tom had “a meaningful opportunity to present his claims, he has demonstrated familiarity with his claims and the ability to present them, because the issues presented by his claims are not complex, and because this does not appear to be a case in which the presence of counsel would make a difference in the outcome.” Tom was not able to obtain his medical records, and prison staff kept taking away boxes of his legal materials during the case. His discovery requests to the defendant doctors gained him nothing.

At summary judgment, the judge found that when Tom went to him, Dr. Eli had provided “timely and appropriate care.” Without his medical records, Tom had no opportunity to show the contrary. The district court threw out the claim.

On Wednesday, the 7th Circuit reversed the dismissal. The Court stated the obvious: without a lawyer and a medical expert, Tom was “totally outclassed by the defense.” The Circuit observed that:

We are mindful that there is no right to an appointed lawyer in civil litigation. We are mindful too that despite lawyers’ ethical obligation to assist those who are too poor to afford counsel, there may be a dearth of lawyers in a district who are willing and able to serve in this sort of case, and 28 USC Sec. 1915 does not authorize a district court to command unwilling lawyers to represent prisoners… When there is a scarcity of willing lawyers, a trial judge can and should exercise discretion to assign those lawyers to cases in which they are most needed. But we have also recognized that lawsuits involving complex medical evidence are particularly challenging for pro se litigants… If a pro se plaintiff in such a case is unable despite his best efforts to obtain a lawyer and a medical expert, and if the case would have a chance of success were the plaintiff represented by counsel the trial judge should endeavor to obtain them for him.

prisonmedicine170127The appellate panel agreed that Tom had filed “well-written submissions,” had “awareness of the facts” and “understanding of the applicable legal standard.” But, the Court said, “none of these supposed ‘assets’ could transform Tom into a medical expert or find him medical evidence to establish that reputable medical professionals would have strongly disagreed with the treatment that he received for his injuries.” A lawyer would have been particularly helpful with discovery in Tom’s case. “Moreover,” the Court said, “the facts on which James bases his suit are straightforward; assisting him with discovery would not have been an onerous task for a lawyer.”

migraine170127Tom might be wrong that, nine years after the fact, his pain is he result of ol’ Doc Hatchet in the prison. He “says he still experiences jaw pain and dysfunction (difficulty eating, sleeping, etc.),” the Court of Appeals said. “That may be mistaken, but it definitely is possible that he has a meritorious Eighth Amendment claim if his current difficulty with his jaw is attributable to the injury and if there was some type of treatment or surgery that could have prevented it, which he would have received had he been given adequate medical treatment. On the basis of the record compiled so far, all we know is that he may have suffered terribly because of inadequate treatment and may have sustained permanent injury.”

The panel was fairly clearly exasperated that the district court had not bothered to level the playing field. “We close by noting that this suit began in 2009 and will soon be in its eighth year even though it should have been apparent from the start that the plaintiff would need counsel and a medical expert witness in order to get to first base.”

James v. Eli, Case No. 15-3034 (7th Cir., Jan. 27, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Child Victim of Long-Ago Sex Video Can Collect Damages from Current Downloader – Update for January 26, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
CRIME DOESN’T PAY

About 15 years ago or so, some depraved mutt made videos of a little girl being sexually molested. The videos – known in the kiddie porn world as the “Vicky Series”– has been circulating on the Internet ever since.

Crime doesn't pay... even for the victim. Ask McGruff...
     Crime doesn’t pay… even for the victim. Ask McGruff…

The young woman at the center of the Vicky series is now trying to regain her life after years of psychological trauma brought on by knowing that disgusting images of her have been seen, actually drooled over, by thousands, if not millions, of people. The legal side of her effort is to make claim for restitution when people are convicted of child porn offenses and their computers are found with any of the “Vicky” series on the hard drives.

She is seeking about $1 million to date for counseling, lost wages, extra educational costs and evidence gathering, her lawyer, Carol Hepburn, said. So far, her client has filed for restitution in more than 200 federal criminal cases across the country, and received more than 50 orders for payment — though not much money has come in because many defendants have little means.

One of those proceedings involved Ricky Funke, convicted of possessing over 600 images and videos of child pornography. Among these were 21 videos from the “Vicky series,” depicting her sexual abuse at the age of 10 and 11. Some of the images and videos had been on his computer since 2001.

The young woman known as “Vicky” requested $27,500 in restitution and attorney’s fees. On the government’s recommendation, Funke’s court ordered $3,500 restitution to Vicky.

Funke challenged the award. On Tuesday, the 11th Circuit upheld the relatively modest award to Vicky.

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which Congress beefed up with a special provision – 18 USC 2259 – for sex offenses, provides that restitution is to be awarded for the “full amount of the victim’s losses,” defined as costs incurred by the victim for medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care, rehabilitation, lost income, attorneys’ fees, and other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.

Funke argued “costs incurred” did not include future costs, but the Circuit noted that five other courts of appeal had held that future losses are compensable, under Sec. 2259. The 11th said, “Congress chose unambiguously to use unqualified language in prescribing full restitution for victims,” and agreed that Vicky’s future costs could be estimated.

pornA160829Rick raised a more troublesome issue, that of whether his possession of 21 videos proximately caused any damage to Vicky. The Circuit held, however, that “where it can be shown both that a defendant possessed a victim’s images and that a victim has outstanding losses caused by the continuing traffic in those images but where it is impossible to trace a particular amount of those losses to the individual defendant by recourse to a more traditional causal inquiry, a court… should order restitution in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.”

Figuring the amount of loss in such a case is more of an art than a science. The Circuit held that a district court should consider the number of past defendants who had contributed to the victim’s general losses, a reasonable prediction of the number of future defendants likely to be convicted for crimes contributing to the victim’s general losses, reliable estimates of the broader number of offenders involved (most of whom will, of course, never be caught or convicted), whether the defendant distributed any of the images; whether the defendant had any connection to the initial production of the images; how many images of the victim the defendant possessed; and other facts relevant to the defendant’s relative causal role.

Here, the district court properly considered Ricky’s “possession of a large number of files involving [Vicky] and his role in distributing files to others over the BitTorrent program.” The appellate panel concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Vicky $3,500 in restitution.

United States v. Funke, Case No. 16-1218 (8th Cir., Jan. 24, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

No Action on Sentence Reform… and None Likely – Update for January 25, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
YOU’LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT

The 115th Congress has been in session for about three weeks now. The incoming Trump Administration has kept it busy, but not on criminal justice reform.


nothing170125A session of Congress is two years long, meaning that the 115th will run until December 2018. Both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, although the Party’s 52-48 hold on the Senate is slight.

Under the law, each Congress starts fresh. That means that all of the bills pending last year – including the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act – are gone. Congress will be starting over fresh – bills will have to be reintroduced and go through all the normal steps before they can become law. To become law, the measures must be approved by the Judiciary Committee of each chamber, and then passed by the full U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and signed by the president.

So far, there’s been a whole lot of nothing on criminal justice. With over 600 House and 180 Senate bills introduced, none addresses sentencing reform.

But will there be? Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), now in line to be Attorney General when the Senate votes on it after Jan. 31, previously called Obama’s commutations an “unprecedented” and “reckless” abuse of executive power. President Trump, before he was inaugurated, complained that the prisoners whose sentences were being commuted were “bad dudes.”

Like Trump, Sessions conflates drug offenders with violent criminals. He argues that “drug trafficking can in no way be considered a ‘non-violent’ crime,” even when it does not involve violence.

What happened in Saginaw, Michigan, earlier this week does nothing to convince Sen. Sessions that he’s over-reacting. Demarlon C. Thomas, a former member of Saginaw’s Sunny Side Gang who had his 19-year prison sentence commuted to 10 years by Obama last fall, was shot to death in what appears to have been an execution. Two rifle-wielding gunmen broke into the halfway house, and while one assailant held 23 halfway house residents at gunpoint, the other sought out Thomas and shot him five times.

callahan160208This kind of graphic shooting, like Wendell Callahan’s murder spree in Columbus a year ago, provide grist for those – like Sessions and Trump – “who reject a central point of agreement underlying bipartisan support for sentencing reform: that there is an important distinction between violent criminals and offenders who engage in peaceful activities arbitrarily proscribed by Congress,” as Reason put it. Although Sessions was a supporter of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 – which, ironically enough, was legislative inducement for the sentence reduction that put Wendell Callahan on the street – he opposed last year’s Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a bill that would have made the shorter crack sentences that the FSA approved in 2010 retroactive, reduced other drug penalties, tightened the standards for mandatory minimum enhancements for guns and career crime, and broadened the criteria for the “safety valve” that lets some drug offenders escape mandatory minimums.

So Congress has yet to propose any bipartisan sentencing reform. Given Trump’s pledge to stop the carnage, as well as the untimely demise of the recently commuted Mr. Thomas, expect nothing.

Gov Track (Jan. 22, 2017)

Reason.com, In Sentencing, Tough Is Not Necessarily Smart (Jan. 25, 2017)

The Saginaw News, Ex-gang member ‘executed’ after Obama commutes sentence (Jan. 24, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Brady Violation Costs Cops $18 Million – Update for January 24, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
PAY THE MAN, SHIRLEY

From New York comes an interesting civil action with a happy ending for a couple of guys who did 18 years on a bum murder rap.

franz170124When a 16-year girl was found raped and murdered back in 1984, Nassau County Police were stumped. After a few months, some mutt shot his mouth off, and the police sweated him until he admitted he’d heard some disjointed but lurid details about the crime from John Restivo. John in turn was sweated by the cops, and he pointed the finger at Dennis Halstead without implicating himself. Nassau County detective Joe Volpe – who may as well have been the real-life model for NYPD Blue detective Andy Sipowicz – then subjected John Kogut, a co-worker of John and Dennis, to an overnight interrogation complete with screaming, threats and beatings.

Unsurprisingly, Kogut confessed (who wouldn’t have?). He implicated John and Dennis in the horrific crime in a statement containing lurid details provided largely by the helpful officers. The police then grabbed John Restivo’s van alleged to have been involved in the crime. They found no blood. However, Det. Volpe recovered some hairs later linked to Theresa.

The Kogut confession could not be used in John’s and Dennis’s trial, because Kogut refused to testify. The jury convicted them anyway, and they went away for 35-to-life.

Fast forward 20 years or so. With much better DNA tests available, the semen sample recovered from the deceased was tested again. Not only were John, Dennis and the weak-kneed Kogut ruled out, but as well a total of 82 friends, acquaintances (and the deceased’s boyfriend) were all excluded as well. In fact, no one in the national DNA database matched the sample from the victim.

interrog170124
          It’s unlikely Detective Volpe’s customer satisfaction surveys were very favorable.

All three defendants – John, Dennis and Mr. Kogut – won new trials. The State tried Kogut first, but even his coerced confession wasn’t enough to convict him, with the spectre of an unknown assailant looming in the case. After Kogut was acquitted, the State threw in the towel, and dismissed the case against John and Dennis.

Inmates who fight their cases in post-conviction motions often dream of winning acquittal, and then turning the victory into a big payday because of wrongful conviction. It’s harder than it sounds – statutes that permit recovery usually require that the former prisoner prove his innocence as a condition of payment. Still, Dennis and John were able to collect $2 million from the State of New York, not a lot for 36 combined years of prison.

Then, the two went after Det. Volpe and some other Nassau County police, suing under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and claiming their constitutional rights were violated. They won against the late Detective Volpe, netting an $18 million judgment.

Last week, the 2nd Circuit upheld the judgment.

Det. Volpe was held liable on the strength of two showings. First, a man named French had reported his car was stolen from the roller rink at which the victim worked on the very day of her disappearance. When the car was recovered a week later, investigators found a pair of jeans that matched the distinctive pattern worn by the victim and a piece of nylon rope the man said had been in his back seat when the car was stolen. The police held the jeans and rope, but both disappeared.

Sometimes the defendant really didn't do it...
Sometimes the defendant really didn’t do it…

The victim had been strangled with a rope, and the car – when it was found about a mile from the roller rink – had phony license tags. Yet Det. Volpe, who conceded at the time that the missing car and items in it were exculpatory evidence that should have been given to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, never told the district attorney about it. The Court of Appeals agreed that the detective’s failure to disclose the evidence – which he admitted was exculpatory – was a willful violation of John’s and Dennis’s constitutional rights. At trial, the plaintiffs’ expert on police procedures

testified that, based on the evidence he had, the French lead was clearly exculpatory, and should have been documented and sent to a prosecutor, based on minimally accepted police practices in the 1980s. In particular, he concluded that based on the time and location of the theft, the fact that the car’s license plates were removed, the fact that a rope was in the back seat at the time of the theft and a rope was used as a ligature to strangle Ms. Fusco, and the fact that a pair of women’s or girls’ striped jeans were found in the back seat of the vehicle, with at least one leg turned inside out, this lead was clearly exculpatory.

Fischer testified that under minimally accepted practices, exculpatory evidence does not need to definitively prove innocence in order for it to have to be documented and disclosed, and that the combination of all of these factors meant that the evidence should have been disclosed under minimally accepted police practices.”

The most troublesome piece of evidence for John and Dennis was the victim’s hair found in the van. The evidence on that clinched matters, the appellate panel implied.

Post-mortem root banding.
                       Post-mortem root banding.

It seems that when a body dies, after a period of 16 hours of so, a condition known as post-mortem root banding occurs, a distinctive series of striations around the root of hair. The coroner had taken hair from the victim’s body and stored it in a locker, a locker to which Det. Volpe had unfettered access. It now turns out that the hair Det. Volpe said had come from the van showed PMRB consistent with the hair taken from the corpse. The evidence, however, showed that it would have been impossible for hair with such PMRB to have been left in the van, because the state’s theory of the case was that she was still alive when in the van.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the evidence was easily sufficient for the civil jury to conclude that there was never any of the victim’s hair in the van, and that Det. Volpe had taken some of the autopsy hair and slipped it into a new envelope, claiming it had come from the van.

The 2nd disposed of a host of other arguments, including that $18 million for two innocent men spending 36 years in prison was too much. The judgment in favor of John and Dennis was upheld.

Pay the men, Shirley.

Restivo v. Volpe, Case No. 14-4662-cv (2nd Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Parsimony is the Takeaway from Obama’s Clemency Initiative – Update for January 23, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
COMMUTATIONS – THE FINAL NUMBERS

The clemency frenzy is over, Obama’s gone, and the final numbers are in. Mostly, they’re as depressing as they are confusing.

First, the depressing: Over his 8 years in office, Obama granted 1,715 commutations while denying 19,357 petitions, for a grant rate of 8.1%. This means he denied 92 of every 100 petitions he saw

226ASP6179944780Second, the confusing: Clemency Project 2014, the volunteer lawyers who screened the clemency petitions for Dept. of Justice, said last Friday that over its two year run, it “completed screening of the more than 36,000 federal prisoners who requested volunteer assistance.” The Clemency Project was entitled to withhold volunteer assistance from people it deemed not qualified – which is said was an “overwhelming majority” of the requests it received – but it was not entitled to deny the applications. Only the White House could do that.

So where did the rest of those applications go? In the final hours of Obama’s presidency, the DOJ Office of Pardon Attorney said it reviewed every drug-related petition filed prior to August 31, 2016. However, there appear to be a lot of clemency petitions that were left stranded last Friday when Obama flew out of town. DOJ said 3,469 drug-related petitions filed after last August remain on file, as well as 4,412 petitions from federal inmates imprisoned for offenses other than drugs.

We have heard from a number of inmates who say their drug-related clemency petitions were filed before the August deadline – even some recommended by the Clemency Project – who have been neither granted nor denied. We have no official verification that this is so, but likewise we have no basis for disbelieving the reports we have received.

Yesterday, one inmate at a federal low-security prison in Texas said, “there are over 40 plus inmates here (along with me) that never heard a thing about our clemency. Most of us submitted it well before September (11 of them back in March) of last year. All of them but me is a drug offender.”

DOJ says, “Consistent with historic practice, these remaining petitions will be processed by the Office of the Pardon Attorney and addressed by future Administrations.”

It is also puzzling that only 66% of the 2,600 petitions recommended by the Clemency Project were granted.

“I think Obama tried to use the existing structure to do something that really hadn’t been done before, and it think the structure just struggled,” said New York University law professor Rachel Barkow, who is on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “There’s not enough people to deal with it, there was too much bureaucracy and it shouldn’t be in the DOJ. It’s asking too much to ask prosecutors to rethink what they already did.”

The Clemency Project 2014, a cooperative effort of the American Bar Association and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, recruited and trained about 4,000 volunteer lawyers from diverse practice backgrounds.

awesome170123The Obama Administration was full of itself praising its record of 92 denials for every 8 grants. Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said, “With 1,715 commutations in total, this undertaking was as enormous as it was unprecedented, and I am incredibly grateful to the teams of people who devoted their time and energy to the project since its inception. By restoring proportionality to unnecessarily long drug sentences, this Administration has made a lasting impact on our criminal justice system.”

Julie Stewart, who chairs Families Against Mandatory Minimums, was more realistic. She praised the clemency grants for the ones who got one, but said, “my heart aches for those who will not make the cut. After over two years of believing they may have a chance for freedom, they now see that door of hope closing. I can’t imagine what the pall in the prisons will feel like on January 20 when President Obama leaves office.”

DOJ Office of Pardon Attorney, Overview Of DOJ’s Clemency Initiative (Jan. 19, 2017)

ProPublica, Obama Picks Up the Pace on Commutations, But Pardon Changes Still in Limbo (Jan. 5, 2017)

Clemency Project 2014, President Obama Caps Final Full Day in Office with 330 More Commutations (Jan. 20, 2017)

DOJ, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates Statement on the Clemency Initiative (Jan. 19, 2017)

Washington Post, Obama grants final 330 commutations to nonviolent drug offenders (Jan. 20, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Supervised Release: The Neverending Nightmare – Update for January 20, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
WHAT’S IN A WORD?

Bob Cross is doing life by the installment plan. He caught a marijuana case (or marihuana, as the government would put it) 2006, and sentenced to 60 months in prison, followed by four years of supervised release.

groundhog170120In August 2010, Bob got out and started his supervised release term, which – for those of you who have had the enjoyment of crossing swords with the federal criminal justice system – is nothing but glorified parole, and a seemingly endless bad dream to boot. Essentially, during supervised release, an offender has to file a monthly report on a form that is as vague and all-encompassing as the federal criminal code itself, and must adhere to equally spongy conditions. Violating the conditions is as easy as walking out your front door in the morning, leaving an offender’s continued freedom pretty much at the mercy of his or her probation officer (and, of course, the court for which the probation officer works).

You’ve heard the old business aphorism, “The customer is always right?” See how that applies when you’re arguing to a district court that the opinion of a probation officer on whom the court relies for so much – and who is a judicial agency employee to boot – should be overruled. You may as well ask Donald Trump to overrule Melania or Ivanka.

right170120Sometimes, however, the violation is fairly obvious. It was for Bob. During his supervised release term, Bob caught state drug possession and theft cases, both of which of course violated his supervised release conditions.

The district court learned about the drug possession beef first, and revoked his supervised release in April 2013, ordering him to do 8 more months in prison and an additional two years of supervised release. In December 2013, Bob finished the 8 months in the cooler, and resumed his supervised release.

Fifteen months later, the district court finally tumbled to Bob’s 2012 theft conviction, and revoked his supervised release again. Apparently due to the age of the conviction and the fact it could have punished him before, the court sentenced him to a single day in jail and another five years of supervised release.

Bob appealed, arguing that the court had revoked his previous supervised release term when it gave him 8 months in prison, and that because it had revoked it, the court had no jurisdiction to revoke the new term for something – the theft – that had happened in the old term. On Wednesday, the 6th Circuit gave Bob a grammar lesson.

word160208The Circuit explained that, “revocation and termination of supervised release are distinct concepts. Termination discharges the defendant and thereby ends the district court’s supervision of him. Thus, if the district court later discovered that the defendant had earlier violated some condition of his supervised release, the court would lack authority to send him back to prison for that violation qua violation. Revocation, in contrast, means that the defendant must “serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release. Thus, revocation does not terminate the defendant’s supervised release; quite the contrary, it requires him to serve “all or part” of it in prison… Revocation therefore revokes only the release part of supervised release; the district court’s supervisory authority continues until the defendant’s supervised release terminates or expires.”

The Court held that because the district court’s authority continues throughout an offender’s supervised release term, so too does the court’s ability to police violations of the release’s conditions. Here, Bob’s supervised release term – and the district court’s right to supervise it – had “neither terminated nor expired by June 2015.” Therefore, the district court could revoke Bob’s supervised release a second time based upon its discovery that he had committed a second violation, no matter where in the supervised release term it happened.

sword170120So Bob gets to live under the Sword of Damocles until summer 2020 (unless of course the district court finds another reason to prolong it even more). By then, Bob will be 15 years into a 5-year pot sentence.

United States v. Cross, Case No. 15-5641 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017).

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

A Nation of Second Chances – Update for January 19, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
5th CIRCUIT OKS 2241 ATTACK UNDER BURRAGE

second170119Everyone’s been gushing about second chances, as President Obama goes out in a blaze of commutation glory, granting sentence clemency to over 600 people in his final days in office. And we have no problem with that, except that so many others who were punished with draconian sentences they could never get today were left behind. 

This week also brought a “second chance” for a rational sentence of a different kind. 

Tiofila Santillana was trafficking in methadone. One of her buyers, as buyers of illegally-sold controlled substances are wont to do, overdosed on a cocktail of alcohol and multiple drugs – including methadone – and “shuffel’d off this mortall coile” (which is Shakespearean for “died).” Under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C), if death results from drugs distributed by a defendant, a court must sentence a defendant to a mandatory minimum 20 years.

The experts testifying in Tiofila’s case agreed that her methadone contributed to the doper’s death, even though it was not the cause of death. The trial court felt obliged to hammer her with a 20-year sentence.

cocktail170119Five years after Tiofila’s conviction, the Supreme Court held in Burrage v. United States that where “use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C) unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury.” Tiofila promptly filed for relief.

But here’s the rub. Tiofila was out of time to file a motion under 28 USC 2255, because that statute requires that the motion be filed within a year of the case becoming final. There is an exception where the “right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”

Tiofila filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2241, claiming she was entitled to relief under Burrage v. United States. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Tiofila had not satisfied the “savings clause” of 28 USC 2255(e) because Burrage was not retroactively applicable on collateral review.

Earlier this week, the 5th Circuit reversed, agreeing with Tiofila that she is entitled to relief. The case provides a clear roadmap as to what must be shown by a petitioner seeking to use a 2241 motion because he or she says a 2255 will not do.

inadequacy17-119Ordinarily, to attack a conviction collaterally, a federal prisoner can seek relief only by a 2255 motion. But under 2255(e)’s “savings clause,” she may file a habeas petition if Sec. 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality” of the detention. Courts have held 2255 to be “inadequate or ineffective” if the 2241 petition raises a claim “that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision”; (2) the claim was previously “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when [it] should have been raised in petitioner’s trial, appeal or first 2255 motion”; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that “the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.”

The Court held that Burrage was retroactive whether the Supreme Court had said so or not, because such new Supreme Court decisions “interpreting federal statutes that substantively define criminal offenses automatically apply retroactively,” applying retroactively because they “necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal…”

retro160110The district court had dismissed Tiofila’s petition, relying on Tyler v. Cain, which held that for a prisoner to file a second or successive habeas petition based on a new rule of constitutional law, the Supreme Court must have held the rule to be retroactive to cases on collateral review. But Tyler does not apply to the “savings clause” of 2255(e), the Circuit said, which requires only that a qualifying 2241 petition be based on a “retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision,” without specifying that the Supreme Court must have made the determination of retroactivity.

On its face, the Court said, “Burrage is a substantive decision that interprets the scope of a federal criminal statute… At issue in Burrage was the meaning of “death or serious bodily injury results.” The Burrage holding “narrows the scope of a criminal statute, because but-for causation is a stricter requirement than are some alternative interpretations of “results.”

Santillana v. Warden, Case No, 15-10606 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

One Copter Is Still On the Embassy Roof – Update for January 18, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2smallUPDATE: MORE TO COME FROM THE PARDONER-IN-CHIEF

When we blasted President Obama this morning (see below),  the White House had not yet announced that President Obama would grant more commutations tomorrow, the day before his presidency ends.

DUNCE170118Officials said those additional commutations would focus on drug offenders and would not likely include any other famous names.

So we were wrong. We don’t recall that ever happening before.

Hindustan Times, More clemency to come after Obama shortens Chelsea Manning’s sentence (Jan. 18, 2017)

LISAStatHeader2small

WHITE HOUSE RELEASES FINAL PARDON/CLEMENCY LIST

President Obama selected the final 273 prisoners and former prisoners to receive commutations or pardons from his Administration. One of the commuted sentences, a decision that has stolen the headines on this story, was that of Army Private Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, whose 35-year parolable sentence for espionage was cut to end on May 17, 2017.

A total of 209 grants of commutation and 64 pardons were announced late yesterday afternoon, pushing Obama’s commutation total to 1,385 individuals, far fewer than the Administration optimistically predicted a year ago.

lastcopter170118“Today, 209 commutation recipients – including 109 individuals serving life terms – learned that they will be rejoining their families and loved ones, and 64 pardon recipients learned that their past convictions have been forgiven,” the White House gushed in a news release. “These 273 individuals learned that our nation is a forgiving nation, where hard work and a commitment to rehabilitation can lead to a second chance, and where wrongs from the past will not deprive an individual of the opportunity to move forward. Today, 273 individuals – like President Obama’s 1,324 clemency recipients before them – learned that our President has found them deserving of a second chance.”

No mention was made of the 6,000 applicants still on file – many of whom, unlike Manning, are veterans who did not betray their country – who were arguably as deserving of a sentence cut. They  were left on the White House lawn as the Obama clemency copter lifted off  for the last time.

Fox News, Obama commutes Chelsea Manning’s sentence for leaking Army documents (Jan. 17, 2017)

The White House, President Obama has now granted more commutations than any president in this nation’s history (Jan. 17, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

DOJ Completes Processing 16,000+ Clemency Requests – Update for January 17, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
WASHINGTON POST REPORTS JUSTICE HAS SENT FINAL COMMUTATION LIST TO PRESIDENT; “HUNDREDS MORE” TO GET CLEMENCY

pardon160321President Obama promised to commute up to 2,000 drug sentences. He has about 75 hours left to come up with the final 850 he needs.

The Washington Post reported yesterday afternoon that Justice Department officials have completed their review of more than 16,000 clemency petitions filed by federal prisoners over the past two years and sent their last recommendations to Obama. The President is reportedly set to grant “hundreds” more commutations to drug offenders during his final days in office, but apparently not the grand categorical gesture than some have urged him to approve.

The national discourse on commutations – which had mostly focused on drug defendants – changed dramatically last Wednesday when NBC News reported Army Private Bradley Manning – who released a trove of U.S. secrets to Wikileaks, leading to an espionage conviction in 2013 – is on Obama’s “short list” for a sentence commutation. Manning, who reportedly suffers from gender dysphoria, got a 35-year sentence, but is eligible for parole in three more years.

hugs170117The media have been speculating about a Manning commutation for months. Last Friday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest, answered a media question about Manning and Edward Snowden (who stole thousands of secrets from the government and fled to hide in Russia). “So, I think the situation of these two individuals is quite different,” Earnest suggested. “I can’t speculate at this point about to what degree that will have an impact on the President’s consideration of clemency requests. I know that there’s a temptation because the crimes were relatively similar to lump the cases together, but there are some important differences, including the scale of the crimes that were committed and the consequences of their crimes.”

Earnest suggested Obama may be willing to offer Manning relief because – unlike Snowdon – Manning took responsibility for his actions in court. It also implies that Obama is willing to commute Manning’s sentence, an act that will be enormously unpopular with a lot of people. Obama’s willingness to do so increases the likelihood he will “go long” on the final commutations to BOP prisoners.

While the media was atwitter about Manning, DOJ was burining the midnight oil to slog through thousands of remaining clemency applications from less-known federal drug offenders. “We were in overdrive,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said. “We were determined to live up to our commitment. It was 24-7 over the Christmas break.”

With 11 days to go, burning the midnight oil...
      Burning the midnight oil at Justice…

At the end of last August, Yates promised DOJ would review every petition from a drug offender that was still in the department’s possession at that time — about 6,195 at that time. The DOJ did that, and even included several hundred petitions received through September 15, after her cutoff date, as well as petition from people with life sentences filed as late as November 30. The final count of petitions reviewed was 16,776.

The urgency arises from the generally-accepted perception that President-elect Donald Trump will dismantle Obama’s clemency initiative, which has resulted in commutation of sentence for 1,176 drug thus far. More than 400 were serving life sentences.

Yates said Obama will grant “a significant” number of commutations this week, but would not specify a number. The Post quoted several people close to the process as saying it will be several hundred. Perhaps in preparation for the announcement this week, last Friday the White House issued with its usual stealth a list of 804 clemency denials, which could be a final cleanup before the major commutation announcement this week.

Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman wrote last night that DOJ and Obama deserve credit for “ultimately making clemency an 11th hour priority. But given that Prez Obama set of modern record for fewest clemencies during his first term in office, and especially because he leaves in place the same troublesome clemency process that has contributed to problems in the past, I will still look at Obama’s tenure largely as an opportunity missed.”

Shadowproof, White House justifies Chelsea Manning’s possible commutation (Jan. 13, 2017)

Washington Post, Obama to commute hundreds of federal drug sentences in final grants of clemency (Jan. 16, 2017)

Sentencing Law and Policy, After reviewing tens of thousands of requests, Obama Administration reportedly finds a few hundred more prisoners worthy of clemency (Jan. 16, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

11th Circuit Holds Florida 2nd Degree Burglary No Crime of Violence – Update for January 13, 2017

Leave a comment

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

LISAStatHeader2small
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

Idust170113t’s been rough sailing for “crimes of violence” in the last few years, as courts have repeatedly limited the types of prior offenses that may be considered by federal courts as crimes of violence. This week, another one – a Florida burglary offense – fell.

This may seem rather dry to a lot of people. Who cares whether a past conviction was violent or not? A lot of people, it turns out, because whether a defendant’s prior crimes are crimes of violence or not makes a dramatic difference in sentencing. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, for example, a convicted felon caught during deer season with a shotgun faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for violating 18 USC 922(g). But if his criminal history includes three crimes of violence, the minimum sentence starts at 15 years and maxes out at life. A number of other statutes and Guidelines also mete out additional punishment depending on whether a defendant’s criminal history is violent or not.

But doesn’t that sound like a good idea? Who needs violent criminals stalking our streets? After all, you convicted felons out there, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…

kermit170113Sure, piling on additional punishment for already-punished misdeeds is viscerally appealing, until you get into the fine print of what the law considers a violent crime to be. Right now, it’s defined as any burglary, extortion, arson or crime involving an explosive. Additionally, it’s any other crime that involves force or the threat of force.

Most of that sounds good, but what about the guy who 20 years ago, used to sneak into the neighbors’ chicken coops and steal some eggs? Or boosted some Twinkies from Walmart? Those are burglaries in most states. Those “crimes of violence” hardly make him a likely chainsaw killer on a rampage.

Part of the problem is that the parameters of the law of burglary vary widely from state to state. What’s called a burglary in one state may be called a simple breaking and entering elsewhere. In other words, the “crime of violence” definition was punishing people depending on whether state legislatures decided to use the “b”-word – burglary – in a statute.

shoplift170113In Taylor v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the term “burglary” to “generic” burglary – unlawful entry into a building or other fixed structure. Breaking into a car, boat, or airplane wouldn’t count. Taylor further made the fateful determination that the analysis of whether a prior conviction for “burglary” satisfied the generic definition of burglary was to be performed on a “categorical” basis. That is, the sentencing court was not to look at the actual facts of the case to decide whether the defendant’s conduct constituted generic burglary; rather, the court was to analyze the statute under which he was convicted to determine whether it “categorically” qualified as generic burglary.

The Supreme Court followed that decision in 2013 with Descamps v. United States, which expanded the use of the “categorical” approach. Johnson v. United States followed two years later, in which the Supreme Court eviscerated the statutory definition of “crime of violence” by invalidating the catch-all residual clause, which included in the definition any offense that carried the risk of harm to a victim, regardless of a defendant’s intent.

burglary160502Then, last summer, the Supreme Court decided Mathis v. United States, which resoundingly endorsed and further broadened the use of Descamps’ “categorical approach.”

One of the guys who cares about it is Juan Gabriel Garcia-Martinez. In 2009 Juan, a Mexican citizen in the United States illegally, was convicted in Florida of 2nd-degree burglary of a dwelling under Florida Statute § 810.02(3).

Florida defines burglary as “[e]ntering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein…” with the intent to commit an offense or a forcible felony. A 2nd degree burglary is one in which while committing the offense, the offender does not make an assault or battery and is not and does not become armed with a dangerous weapon or explosive. A “dwelling” is “a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof.” § 810.011(2)

deport170113After his Florida 2nd degree burglary conviction, Juan got booted from the United States and told never to come back. But he did. However, four years later, Juan was back, and immigration agents caught up with him in a Florida jail after he had been arrested for battery. He later pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation.

The presentence investigation report assigned a base offense level of 8 under USSG § 2L1.2(a) and a 16-level increase under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for having committed a crime of violence – the 2nd degree burglary – prior to being deported. As a result, Juan faced a sentence of 41 to 51 months imprisonment.

On Wednesday, the 11th Circuit vacated the sentence. It held that the Florida 2nd-degree burglary statute was broader than the generic definition of burglary. The Florida definition of a “dwelling” included not just the building itself, but the curtilage as well. Curtilage is defined in Florida as an enclosure around a residence, such as a law surrounded by a hedgerow or a fenced-in backyard. The Circuit said, “Florida’s inclusion of curtilage in its definition of dwelling makes its burglary of a dwelling offense non-generic. Curtilage… is not categorically used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence because it can include the yard and, as the State acknowledges, potentially even outbuildings as long as they are located within the enclosure.”

Everywhere inside the stockade is curtilage...
                                                  Everywhere inside the stockade is curtilage…

Because Florida law defined curtilage as part of the dwelling for purposes of burglary, the 11th held the statute was indivisible, and thus – no matter what the facts of Juan’s burglary might have been – it was not a crime of violence.

The effect of the holding will be to cut Juan’s Guidelines range to a maximum of 14 months.

United States v. Garcia-Martinez, Case No. 14-15725 (11th Cir.  Jan. 11, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small