All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Dog Bites Man: Judge Says NYC BOP Facilities Run By Morons – Update for May 14, 2021

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.

JUDGE SAYS “DISGUSTING, INHUMAN” BOP NYC FACILITIES ARE RUN BY MORONS

moron210514A senior Federal judge who navigated her Manhattan-based court through the pandemic denounced conditions at MDC Brooklyn and MCC New York as “disgusting” and “inhuman” during the sentencing last month of a woman who spent months in solitary confinement after contracting COVID-19.

US District Court Judge Colleen McMahon said in a transcript just obtained by the Washington Post that the facilities are “run by morons.” During the sentencing, McMahon castigated the BOP, saying the agency’s ineptitude and failure to “do anything meaningful” at the MCC in Manhattan and MDC Brooklyn amounted to the “single thing in the five years that I was chief judge of this court that made me the craziest.”

“It is the finding of this court that the conditions to which the defendant was subjected are as disgusting, inhuman as anything I’ve heard about any Colombian prison,” McMahon said on the record, “but more so because we’re supposed to be better than that.”

The BOP responded in a statement that it “takes seriously our duty to protect the individuals entrusted in our custody, as well as maintain the safety of correctional staff and the community.”

plague200406Meanwhile, The Trentonian reported last week that FCI Fort Dix set as COVID-19 record for the worst outbreaks of any federal facility. New Jersey US Senators Bob Menendez and Cory Booker, both Democrats, called on the BOP last month to “prioritize the vaccination program” at FCI Fort Dix. More than 70% of the 2,800 prisoners at Fort Dix have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began. As of last week, 52% of Fort Dix inmates have been vaccinated.

Also last week, the Legislative Committee of the Federal Public and Community Defenders wrote a 16-page letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asking for Congressional action to reform the BOP in areas as varied as inmate healthcare to compassionate release to First Step Act programming credits.

“Although the Biden Administration has taken significant steps to beat back COVID-19 in the community,” the letter said, “individuals in BOP custody remain at high risk. Over a year into the pandemic, they are subject to harsh and restrictive conditions of confinement and lack adequate access to medical care, mental health services, and programming. The improvements to programming promised by the First Step Act  generally stand unfulfilled.”

Most significant was criticism of BOP healthcare that went beyond the pandemic: “Dr. Homer Venters, a physician and epidemiologist who has inspected several BOP facilities to assess their COVID-19 response, identified a “disturbing lack of access to care when a new medical problem is encountered” and is concerned that “[w]ithout a fundamental shift in how BOP approaches… health services, people in BOP custody will continue to suffer from preventable illness and death, including the inevitable and subsequent infectious disease outbreaks.”

COVIDvaccine201221The letter also took aim at the high vaccine refusal rate by BOP staff (currently 50.5% refused), staffing shortages, and the BOP’s poor record on granting compassionate release.

The letter complains that the BOP’s proposed rule on awarding earned time credit “impermissibly restricts an individual’s ability to earn time credits, makes it too easy to lose those credits, and unduly excludes broad categories from the earned time credit system. In short, these provisions kneecap the FSA’s incentive structure and make it less likely individuals will participate in programs and activities to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.” The letter notes that if a prisoner programmed 40 hours a week, it would take more time to earn a year’s credit than the length of the average federal sentence.

The Trentonian, Ft Dix FCI has largest total COVID-19 cases among U.S. federal prisons (May 4, 2021)

Federal Public and Community Defenders, Letter to Sens Durbin and Grassley (May 4, 2021)

Washington Post, Judge says ‘morons’ run New York’s federal jails, denounces ‘inhuman’ conditions (May 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Two Very Distinguished Cases – Update for May 13, 2021

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.

A SOLITARY RAY OF LIGHT…

There was a single bright spot in otherwise dreary judicial news last week.

light210513When an appeals court 3-judge panel issues a precedent-making opinion, no other 3-judge panel can invalidate it. Only the court of appeals sitting en banc (all of the active judges as one court) can do that.

So when a 3-judge panel does something stupid, what can another 3-judge panel do about it?

Last week, a 6th Circuit panel employed one method of finessing a way around a lousy opinion: it distinguished it. That means the judges found some factual difference that let them rule the way they thought they should rule, regardless of the prior opinion.

Ian Owens was charged with one count of bank robbery. He wouldn’t take a deal, so the government added an 18 USC § 924(c) count for using a gun in the commission of a violent crime. He still wouldn’t deal, so the government added another. By the time Ian went to trial, the government had heaped five § 924(c) counts on top of the robbery. Because the case was decided much before the First Step Act changed things around, the § 924(c) counts were stacked, with the second through fifth counts each carrying a mandatory 300 months. Ian was sentenced to 1370 months (114 years).

When Ian filed a compassionate release motion claiming that he wouldn’t get that kind of time after the First Step Act ended § 924(c) stacking and that his co-defendants all got a lot less time than he did, he ran into two prior 6th Circuit decisions, United States v. Tomes and United States v. Wills. Both of those cases said First Step changes in 18 USC § 924(c) could not be used as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a compassionate release sentence reduction. The district court did not consider Ian’s evidence of rehabilitation, any other bases for a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons, or the 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

hares210513Last week, the 6th Circuit split hairs in a split decision, and explained away Tomes and Wills. In those cases, the Circuit said, the prisoner argued only that the First Step Act changed § 924(c) stacking. But Ian had three reasons supporting his extraordinary and compelling showing, not just one. That made his case “factually distinguishable,” the 6th said. “Owens points to the fact that his lengthy sentence resulted from exercising his right to a trial and to his rehabilitative efforts as additional factors that considered together constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason meriting compassionate release,” the Circuit said. “Further, the district court in Owen’s case did not consider these other factors and, instead, summarily concluded that his First Step Act 403 argument was meritless.”

It was not necessarily meritless, the 6th said. “In making an individualized determination about whether extraordinary and compelling reasons merit compassionate release, a district court may include, along with other factors, the disparity between a defendant’s actual sentence and the sentence that he would receive if the First Step Act applied…”

The decision seems to have jumped onto a rather technical difference between Ian’s situation and the prior cases, but those prior decisions largely stink. Now, the odor has been contained, or – as lawyers like to say – Tomes and Wills have been “limited to their facts.”

United States v. Owens, Case No 20-2139, 2021 US App LEXIS 13656 (6th Cir May 6, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Can Clemency Save CARES Act Home Confinees? – Update for May 11, 2021

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.

RUMBLINGS OF FIXING CLEMENCY AND HOME CONFINEMENT

biden210511White House officials are signaling that President Biden is prepared to “flex his clemency powers” as officials wade through the 14,000+ clemency requests on file.

I reported last week on a Zoom call the White House held to discuss criminal justice reform with advocates and former inmates. While the White House did not signal any imminent moves, officials indicated that Biden will not hold off until later in his term to issue pardons or commutations, The Hill reported last week.

“It was clear that they are working on something,” Norris Henderson, founder and executive director of Voice of the Experienced, who participated in the call, told The Hill. “They are looking at that right now as an avenue to start doing things.”

Meanwhile, an opinion piece in USA Today suggested Biden grant clemency to people on CARES Act home confinement as a means of thwarting last January’s Dept of Justice opinion that those people would have to return to prison after the pandemic ends.

noplacelikehome200518The Hill reported Saturday that Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland have been facing mounting calls to rescind the DOJ memo. a policy implemented in the final days of the Trump administration that would revoke home confinement for those inmates as soon as the government lifts its emergency declaration over the coronavirus.

Randilee Giamusso, a Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesperson, told The Hill that the Biden administration had recently expanded the eligibility for home confinement, the clearest admission yet the pressure from above is forcing a renewed emphasis on CARES Act home confinement. Giamusso noted that Biden has extended the national COVID emergency declaration and that the Dept of Health and Human Services expects the crisis to last through the end of 2021.

insincerity210511“The BOP is focused right now on expanding the criteria for home confinement and taking steps to ensure individualized review of more inmates who might be transferred,” Giamusso said.  

Of course it is. No one who has ever dealt with the BOP can fairly doubt its laser focus on its mission or the helpfulness and professional polish of its staff.

The Hill, Biden set to flex clemency powers (May 5, 2021)

USA Today, COVID-19 concerns sent thousands of inmates home. Give clemency to those who deserve it. (May 5, 2021)

The Hill, DOJ faces big decision on home confinement (May 9, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

11th Circuit Throws Wrench Into Compassionate Release Gears – Update for May 10, 2021

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.

11TH CIRCUIT SPOILS THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE PARTY

downer210510You’d never invite the 11th Circuit to a party. Once again, the Debbie Downer of appellate courts has gone its own way, destroying most of the usefulness of compassionate release motions (aka sentence reduction motions under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)) that all the other circuits take for granted.

Before last Friday, seven courts of appeal have held that USSG § 1B1.13 – the Guidelines policy statement on compassionate release – does not limit motions brought by prisoners. The Guideline – written well before the First Step Act allowed defendants themselves (instead of the BOP Director alone) to bring compassionate release motions – only allows compassionate release motions for a limited list of problems. Anything not on the list – such as the COVID risks for people with vulnerable medical conditions – must be approved by the BOP.

The BOP’s record of approving compassionate release motions is dismal. Between April and December 2020, the BOP approved 11 out of 10,940 inmate requests, which works out to one-tenth of 1%. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits have all agreed that § 1B1.13 – unamended since First Step passed – is not an “applicable policy statement” for compassionate release motions brought by prisoners, and will not be until the Sentencing Commission amends it to reflect current law.

hammer160509The consensus of those other circuits does not impress the 11th Circuit. Jim Bryant moved for compassionate release because First Step had cut the mandatory 25-year minimum for an 18 USC § 924(c) gun conviction because he received a higher sentence than some of his coconspirators, because he went to trial, and because he has a good prison rehabilitation record. Last week, the Circuit shot down his request because the BOP had not approved the basis for reduction.

The 11th said, “Application Note 1(D) does not conflict with § 3582(c)(1)(A). The First Step Act’s only change was to allow for defendant-filed reduction motions. Nothing in Application Note 1(D) stops a defendant from filing a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. The BOP may still file motions, and Application Note 1(D) can apply to those motions. The BOP can also take a position on a defendant-filed motion, so Application Note 1(D) has a field of application there as well… Because this Court can give effect to the amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the unamended Application Note 1(D) at the same time, the Court must do so.”

The effect this ruling will have on compassionate release motions in the 11th Circuit can hardly be overstated. The stark circuit split created by this 2-1 decision may result in Supreme Court review, but inasmuch as a reconstituted Sentencing Commission – which President Biden intends to do – is likely to have § 1B1.13 amended by November 2022, the likelihood the Supreme Court will take up what is likely to be moot a few months after the case is decided is slim.

United States v. Bryant, Case No 19-14267, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 13663 (11th Cir., May 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Reform When? – Update for May 7, 2021

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.

WHERE’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM?

Some advocates are starting to lose patience with the Biden Administration’s lack of a concrete criminal justice reform package.

lips210507Kara Gotsch of The Sentencing Project told NPR last week, “The lip service is good, but we need more, more action.” And Kevin Ring, president of FAMM, said while he is guardedly optimistic that the White House is trying to lay the groundwork for more foundational change. “But there‘s also some skepticism that he was going to have to tear down the house that he built in some ways through the sentencing laws and prison policies he not only sponsored but bragged about,” Ring said.

But last Friday, with “Second Chance Month” running out, White House officials held a virtual listening session with criminal justice advocates who were previously incarcerated to receive input on how to advance prison reform through policy.

White House counsel Dana Remus and domestic policy adviser Susan Rice were among the leaders of the conference, which included leaders from 10 advocacy groups such as Forward Justice, the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and JustLeadershipUSA.

Biden has not yet moved to end the use of the death penalty, despite promising to do so on the campaign trail. And while he has pushed for action on police reform legislation following the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd, Biden has kept a distance from legislative negotiations on Capitol Hill as Democratic and Republican lawmakers try to find common ground.

Friday’s meeting was held to commemorate Second Chance Month, a nationwide effort to highlight the challenges faced by people who have been previously convicted.

“Too many people — disproportionately black and brown people — are incarcerated. Too many face an uphill struggle to secure a decent job, stable housing, and basic opportunity when they return from prison,” the White House said in the readout. “Those who have been through the system have particular insight into its shortcomings and the reforms that are needed.”

actions210507Whether the listening ripens into a criminal justice reform proposal is anyone’s guess, but with Biden focused on his infrastructure proposal, some suspect reform is not a top Biden priority. USA Today last weekend suggested actions speak louder than platitudes. The paper blasted DOJ’s intransigence in opposing virtually every compassionate release motion filed:

But talk is cheap, and while the administration’s rhetoric is promising, second chances remain few and far between in a federal criminal system where the Department of Justice continues to thwart the administration’s goals by opposing the release of individuals who are rehabilitated and do not pose a risk to the public. Making good on his commitment to criminal justice reform requires more than rhetoric. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice must change course.

NPR, Activists Wait For Biden To Take Bold Action On Criminal Justice Reform (April 28, 2021)

The Hill, White House officials meet virtually with criminal justice reform advocates (May 1, 2021)

USA Today, Biden administration needs to walk the walk on second chances for prisoners (May 1, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

“Did We Nail That Pandemic, Or What?” – Update for May 6, 2021

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.

TELL US HOW WE’RE DOING

howwedoing210506The Dept of Justice Office of Inspector General announced last week that it would be conducting a second survey of BOP staff and a first survey of inmates to determine how well the BOP performed during the pandemic.

The results of the surveys should be illuminating.

And how are things now? As of last Friday, the BOP said it has given two doses of vaccine to about 35% of all inmates, and about 49% of staff. About 126 inmates are sick with COVID-19, and 164staff, with COVID still present in 67% of facilities, if BOP numbers can be believed.

numbers180327But can the numbers be believed? The Marshall Project and Associated Press, which jointly have been tracking how many people are being sickened and killed by COVID-19 in prisons across the country and within each state since March 2020, have given up on BOP numbers, warning that “our understanding of the full toll of the pandemic on incarcerated people is limited by the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy of removing cases and deaths from its reports in recent months. As a result, we cannot accurately determine new cases or deaths in federal prisons, which have had more people infected than any other system.”

Another federal inmate died of COVID last week, this one at FMC Devens. Paul Archambault contracted COVID-19 at the end of December but was declared “recovered” ten days later. The “recovery” label appears to have benefited record-keeping more than Mr. Archambault. Like a number of others before him, he died of the COVID-19 from which he had recovered.

rehabB160812In New York last week, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted compassionate release to an inmate at MCC Manhattan, ruling that a key part of her sentence was addiction treatment and care for other ailments. The judge said the BOP hasn’t provided it to the inmate, who was serving a sentence for a cocaine conspiracy.

“Due to the extreme lockdown conditions at the [Metropolitan Correctional Center] and [Metropolitan Detention Center], the inmate has been unable to receive mental health care, drug abuse treatment, and other important services that the Court envisioned her receiving while incarcerated,” the judge wrote. “The Court believes these services to be critical to her physical and mental health, and to her ability to reenter society as a productive and law-abiding citizen.”

DOJ Inspector General, Surveys of BOP Federal Prison Staff and Inmates (April 28, 2021)

The Marshall Project, A State-by-State Look at Coronavirus in Prisons (April 30, 2021)

BOP, Inmate Death at FMC Devens (April 29, 2021)

New York Daily News, Judge, inmate slam conditions at NYC federal jails in pandemic’s 13th month (April 26, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Twenty-Five Years of Mischief Is Enough – Update for May 4, 2021

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.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO TWO LOUSY LAWS

A quarter-century ago, Congress enacted a pair of laws that severely restricted the ability of prisoners to raise constitutional challenges against conditions of confinement, as well as challenge unjust and wrongful convictions. Over the last 25 years, this pair of laws — the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) — “have all but closed the federal courthouse doors to life and death lawsuits,” the ACLU complained last week in commemorating dual anniversaries of enactment of the laws.

aedpa210504

First, the AEDPA: “This pernicious, dizzyingly complicated law created a minefield of procedural barriers and deadlines that severely limited state prisoner use of federal habeas corpus,” the ACLU said last week. What’s more, it placed severe restrictions on the filing of 28 USC § 2255 habeas corpus motions, especially successive ones. The AEDPA, according to the Washington Post, was “the first time in centuries that the legislature of a western democracy had put restrictions on the “Great Writ.”

innocent210504The AEDPA took away a lot of the authority of federal judges to do their jobs. “The law creates a maze of Kafkaesque procedures that create the danger of an incarcerated person’s petition being thrown out at every turn for a failure to follow even the most minute rule,” the ACLU reported, “regardless of whether their claims have merit.”

While having its most restrictive impact on state prisoners, the AEDPA set severe time limits on the filing of 2255 motions, stripped from judges the ability to choose when a successive 2255 was appropriate instead of abusive, and seriously limited a petitioner’s right to appellate review, unless he or she first obtained a certificate of appealability granting permission to appeal.

Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996, a piece of litigation that – contrary to most laws Washington enacts – has worked all too well. The goal of the PLRA was to reduce the number of lawsuits brought by prisoners, and by that metric, it has been a phenomenal success. But now, many commentators are calling for its demise.

nothing170125Passed as the nation’s prison population was exploding thanks to the war on drugs, the PLRA was supposed to weed out the sort of frivolous prisoner litigation Congress perceived as bombarding the federal courts. As The Appeal described it last week, testimony in hearings on the PLRA “focused on sensationalized and largely mythical claims about ‘a defective haircut by a prison barber, the failure of prison officials to invite a prisoner to a pizza party, and, yes, being served chunky peanut butter instead of creamy variety’. By dismissing real cries for help as frivolous, disingenuous, and opportunist, lawmakers built the PLRA on dehumanizing and inaccurate stereotypes of incarcerated men and women.”

In the 25 years since, it has become clear that the PLRA is reducing prisoner litigation — but not just by targeting frivolous claims. It cut the rate of civil rights lawsuits filed by prisoners by nearly half. “But if the goal was to somehow weed out ‘frivolous’ lawsuits in favor of meritorious claims, the Appeal argued, “then, presumably, there would have been at least some increase in the rate of successful civil rights lawsuits by incarcerated plaintiffs. Not so. Instead, the success rate of civil rights lawsuits for incarcerated plaintiffs steadily dropped after the enactment of the PLRA and despite a recent uptick is nearly identical to the success rate pre-PLRA.”

Among other provisions, the PLRA made exhaustion of remedies mandatory prior to suing. It permitted courts to throw out suits as frivolous prior to requiring an answer. And it required prisoners to pay filing fees by withholding installment payments from commissary accounts, even if the prisoner was indigent. Additionally, the PLRA makes it “hard to find representation by sharply capping attorney fees, creates high barriers to settlement, and weakens the ability of courts to order changes to prison and jail policies,” according to the Prison Policy Initiative.

nothingcoming181018Incarcerated people are still allowed to sue over unlawfully inflicted physical injury, but the PLRA restricts the remedies available in cases where people are alleging only mental or emotional harm. Some courts have interpreted this to mean that people cannot receive money damages for their prison/jail injuries unless they can show that they suffered extremely serious physical injury. Others have found that this provision applies even to Constitutional claims about free speech, religious freedom, discrimination, and due process.

As a Senator, Joe Biden tried to strip the AEDPA of its worst limitation, but President Clinton’s support for the bill doomed the effort. Now, the Post said last week, “lawmakers could consult with defense lawyers, legal scholars, federal judges and prosecutors, repeal AEDPA, and replace it with something more just and fair. The last 25 years have shown the Clinton administration should have listened to Biden in 1995. But, now, Biden’s own administration can lead an effort to fix the problems he predicted, and once tried to prevent.”

ACLU, The Unhappy 25th Birthday of Two Tough-on-Crime Era Laws That Have Deadly Consequences for Incarcerated People (April 27, 2021)

Washington Post, Opinion: Joe Biden fought this destructive law. 25 years later, he can help repeal it (April 27, 2021)

The Appeal, How The Prison Litigation Reform Act Has Failed For 25 Years (April 26, 2021)

Prison Policy Initiative, Slamming the Courthouse Door: 25 years of evidence for repealing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (April 26, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Hobbs Is Violent, Hobbs Is Not Violent – Update for May 3, 2021

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.

THE TWO FACES OF HOBBS

Two cases decided in the past few weeks illustrate the strange world of Hobbs Act robbery.

janus210502The Hobbs Act, a post-war legacy of Congressman Sam Hobbs (D-Alabama) federalized robbery of the corner candy store. Sam was a man of his time, close friends of J. Edgar Hoover (and sponsor of a bill that would have let the FBI wiretap anyone suspected of a felony, which ultimately did not pass).

The Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act of 1946 amended the Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934 after the Supreme Court held in United States v. Teamsters Local 807 that Congress meant to exempt union extortion from criminal liability.  Congress did not so intend, and Sam Hobbs sponsored a bill that made sure the Court got the message.

Like its predecessor, the Hobbs Act prescribes heavy criminal penalties for acts of robbery or extortion that affect interstate commerce. The courts have interpreted the Hobbs Act broadly, requiring only a minimal effect on interstate commerce to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction. That Clark bar you stole at gunpoint?  It was made over in Altoona, Pennsylvania, by the Boyer Candy Co. Inasmuch as you robbed it from a confectioner in Podunk Center,  Iowa, your robbery affected interstate commerce. Presto – a Hobbs Act robbery.

clark2120503The Hobbs Act has been used as the basis for federal prosecutions in situations not apparently contemplated by Congress in 1946. Just ask Earl McCoy.

Earl rode around in the car while his brothers committed armed home invasions, stealing TVs and the such from Harry and Harriet Homeowner at gunpoint. Convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act conspiracy, attempted Hobbs Act robbery and of four counts of using a gun in the commission of the crimes, Earl got sentenced to 135 years.

That’s only 15 years less than Bernie Madoff got for a $65 billion swindle, proving Earl was probably in the wrong business. Of course, Bernie didn’t use a gun. It was the gun that got Earl, five stacked 18 USC § 924(c) counts that added 107 years to his sentence. The First Step Act changed the stacking law, so the same offense would net Earl only 35 years today, still substantial time but at least servable in a normal lifetime.

Ernie appealed his conviction, arguing that the attempted robberies, the conspiracy, and aiding and abetting could not support 18 USC 924(c) convictions. Ten days ago, the 2nd Circuit gave him a split decision.

violence181008The 2nd agreed that after United States v. Davis, Hobbs Act conspiracy no longer supports a § 924(c) conviction. No surprise there. But the Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery and, for that matter, aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery, was a crime of violence that supports a § 924(c) conviction.

Earl argued that one could attempt a Hobbs Act robbery without ever using force. After all, scoping out a store to rob while carrying a gun is enough to constitute an attempt, and no violence was ever used. Doesn’t matter, the 2nd said. To be guilty of Hobbs Act attempted robbery, a defendant necessarily must intend to commit all of the elements of robbery and must take a substantial step towards committing the crime. Even if a defendant’s substantial step didn’t itself involve the use of physical force, he or she must necessarily have intended to use physical force and have taken a substantial step towards using physical force. That constitutes “attempted use of physical force” within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A).

For aiding-and-abetting to be enough to convict someone of a crime, the underlying offense must have been committed by someone other than the defendant, and the defendant must have acted with the intent of aiding the commission of that underlying crime. An aider and abetter is as guilty of the underlying crime as the person who committed it.

Because an aider and abettor is responsible for the acts of the person who committed the crime, the Circuit held, “an aider and abettor of a Hobbs Act robbery necessarily commits all the elements of a principal Hobbs Act robbery.”

lock200601Earl will get 25 years knocked off his sentence, leaving him with a mere 110 years to do. As for whether “attempts” to commit a crime of violence is itself a crime of violence, that question may not be settled short of the Supreme Court.

But the Hobbs Act has a split personality: it is not a crime of violence for all purposes. In the 4th Circuit, Rick Green pled to Hobbs Act robbery, with an agreed sentence of 120 months. But the presentence report used the Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence to make him a Guidelines career offender, with an elevated 151-188 month sentencing range. At sentencing, Rick argued Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence under the Guidelines “career offender” definition. His sentencing judge disagreed.

But last week, the 4th Circuit sided with Rick. Applying the categorical approach, the Circuit observed that Hobbs Act robbery can be committed “by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future,” to a victim’s person or property.” The 4th said, “this definition, by express terms, goes beyond the use of force or threats of force against a person and reaches the use of force or threats of force against property, as well… So to the extent the Guidelines definition of “crime of violence” requires the use of force or threats of force against persons, there can be no categorical match.”

Thus, Rick was not a “career offender,” and will get resentenced to his agreed-upon 120 months.

United States v. McCoy, Case No 17-3515(L), 2021 US App. LEXIS 11873 (2nd Cir Apr 22, 2021)

United States v. Green, Case No 19-4703, 2021 US App. LEXIS 12844 (4th Cir Apr 29, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

We’ve Got The Shorts – Update for April 30, 2021

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.

Today, this being the end of the month, we’re cleaning off our desktop…

SOME ODDS AND ENDS FROM LAST WEEK

Banned in Moscow: In response to President Biden’s expulsion of Russian diplomats because of the massive Solar Winds computer hack discovered last December, Vladimir Putin last week banned eight US officials from entering Russia.

The excluded government honcho include current top intelligence officials, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and… BOP Director Michael Carvajal.

carvajal210430Huh? The media covering the story have explained the reasons for all of the expulsions except for Carvajal’s, which is usually noted as an afterthought.

Putin knows why Carvajal is on the list. Carvajal maybe knows. But no one else seems to have any idea.

The Hill, Russia blocks key Biden Cabinet officials from entering in retaliation for sanctions (April 16, 2021)


FMC Carswell Catching Heat for Inmate Death: The Ft Worth, Texas Star-Telegram reported last week on the death of Martha Evanoff at FMC Carswell.  The paper said that Evanoff “begged for medical attention for months, fellow inmates say, but was denied help until she died” on April 12.

Evanoff had surgery last November, but, according to a fellow inmate as well as Evanoff’s own emails to me, her intestines protruded through the surgical incision into her abdominal wall that had opened up. Ultimately the protrusion pinched the intestines shut, blocking them completely.

medmal170127“It was totally unnecessary. They could have done something to help her,” an inmate told the paper. “She is not the first person to die here from intestinal blockage.”

Another inmate reportedly said that Evanoff begged for help about the pain she was in, and “this place did nothing. Medical indifference = murder,” the inmate wrote. “And it is just as bad as having a knee on your neck…”

In an email Evanoff wrote to me in early February, she said, “I have been extremely ill — mainly bedridden with only bathroom trips. Visibly, I have these ENORMOUS, HARD TO MISS – Incision hernias all over my abdominal area… makes it impossible for me to do anything… One in particular sticks way out like I am pregnant with 8 children… Please help me out of here BEFORE I die here…”

A suit against FMC Carswell brought by over 70 named inmates alleging negligent medical care is pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Ft Worth Star-Telegram: Woman at Fort Worth medical prison died after staff ignored cries for help, women say (April 20, 2021)

Blake v. Carr, Case No 4:20cv807 (N.D. Texas)
Cohen Court Nixes Earned Time Credits: Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, on CARES Act home confinement until his sentence ends in November, brought a habeas corpus action to win earned time credits for programs he took while still locked up.

cohen200730Last week, Mike’s judge turned him down. “The statute clearly envisions that the program will be gradually implemented during the phase-in period. During this period, the [First Step] Act requires the BOP to provide evidence-based recidivism reduction activities for all prisoners before the two-year anniversary of the date that the BOP completes a risk and needs assessment for each prisoner, namely by January 15, 2022. The statute also requires the BOP during the phase-in period to develop and validate the risk and needs assessment to be used in the reassessments of risk of recidivism, while prisoners are participating in and completing evidence-based recidivism programs. But the statute does not require the BOP to begin awarding Earned Time Credits during the phase-in period. Indeed, the statute specifically leaves to the discretion of the BOP whether to expand existing programs and whether to offer to prisoners who successfully participate in such programs incentives and rewards.”

Cohen v. United States, Case No 20-CV-10833, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 75852 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2021)

Law and Crime, Federal Judge Denies Michael Cohen’s Petition to Cut His Sentence Under Trump’s First Step Act (April 20, 2021)

I’ll Be Watching You: In a report released last week, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said the IRS identified more than 4,500 fraudulent tax returns using a prisoner’s social security number in 2019, claiming refunds totaling over $14 million.

watching210430The amounts could have been higher, but since 2017, the IRS has set up processes to stop tax refunds from being issued to prisoners and people who steal prisoners’ SSNs. One of them involves the BOP and state departments of corrections complying with a requirement to provide the IRS with an annual list of all prisoners incarcerated within their prison system. Another program, which the Inspector General said should be expanded, is the Blue Bag Program, in which the IRS partners with the BOP and state corrections departments to identify potentially fraudulent tax returns and refunds. The IRS program automatically pulls prisoner tax returns for fraud analysis.

Accounting Today, IRS cracks down on prisoner tax fraud and identity theft (April 19, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Buyer’s Remorse At SCOTUS Over Rehaif? – Update for April 29, 2021

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.

YOU’LL NEVER FORGET YOUR FIRST FELONY

Robber160229The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in United States v. Gary and Greer v. United States, two cases that would dramatically increase the benefits to defendants flowing from Rehaif v. United States.

But the devil’s in the details, and the prospects for neither one looks good. While it’s dangerous to predict the outcome of a case based on what you hear at oral argument, the Supremes seemed skeptical of the relief the defendants were urging and perhaps just a little uneasy over the genie that Rehaif let out of the bottle.

Mike Gary pled guilty to an 18 USC 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession charge. After Rehaif held that a defendant had to actually know that he or she fell within a class that was prohibited from having a gun, the 4th Circuit held that the district court’s failure to tell Mike that the government had to prove he knew he was a felon at the time he possessed the weapon was a “structural” error, and therefore his conviction had to be vacated whether or not the error made any difference in the proceeding’s outcome.

In the second case, Greg Greer was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession. After Rehaif, the 11th Circuit reaffirmed his conviction on the ground that, according to his presentence report (which was not part of the evidence at trial), Greg had previously been convicted of five felonies and had served more than a year in prison. Therefore, the court reasoned, it wouldn’t have made any difference if his jury had been properly instructed about the government’s obligations, because if Rehaif had been the law, the government would easily have shown that Greg knew he was a prohibited felon. At the Supreme Court, Greg was arguing that the appellate court should have limited itself to the evidence in front of the jury (which of course contained nothing about Greg’s checkered past).

The justices were overtly skeptical of Greg’s argument. Justice Thomas asked, “Do you have any doubt in this case that the government would have preferred to introduce the evidence that you say is lacking here?… Your approach would put someone who stipulates in a better position than someone who actually went to trial.”

breyeradrift210429Justice Breyer, who wrote Rehaif, seemed to be looking for a way to limit any further fallout from the decision. “Why only look at the trial record?” he asked, before posing a number of hypotheticals. “There could have been something that happened before the trial [that is] an error,” the justice noted. “There could be something on the list of witnesses, there could be a limitation on what’s asked,” Breyer continued. “The possibilities are endless. So where does this idea come from you can only look at certain things?” he asked. “I’m totally at sea as to why or how to draw some line.”

The justices seemed similarly skeptical of Mike Gary’s case, with many noting that it could have widespread effects on existing convictions. Speaking about the proposition that an individual’s felony status “is not the kind of thing that one forgets,” Justice Kavanaugh said, “from that premise it seems odd to throw out all of the convictions” and asked Mike’s lawyer if he believed that premise to be true.

judgedefendant210429“The question shouldn’t be whether defendants are typically aware of the element or the element is typically satisfied,” Gary’s counsel replied. “The question should be whether the defendant when he pleads guilty understood that that was part of the charge and therefore was given an opportunity to exercise his own free will.”

Both cases will be decided by the end of June.

SCOTUSBlog, Justices wrestle with procedural issues stemming from their own federal criminal-law decision (April 21, 2021)

Law & Crime, SCOTUS Seems to Have Heeded Justice Alito’s Warning, Appears Unlikely to Reverse Gun Convictions (April 20, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root