We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
JUST BECAUSE A 2255 WON’T WORK DOESN’T MEAN A 2241 WILL
What we mean is in post-conviction proceedings on federal convictions, the best case on the planet (imagine a newly-discovered busload of nuns who all swear they saw you helping your mother weed her garden 50 miles from the back that was being robbed at the same time) does not help you if you have no procedural course for getting back into court. And the procedural snares of 28 USC § 2255 are many and varied.
Lee Farkas was charged with various white-collar fraud offenses, and the government got court permission to freeze all of his considerable assets before trial. The purported reason is to be sure there is enough money to pay criminal forfeiture and restitution if the government wins, but the real reason, of course, is that it hamstrings the defendant, making it impossible to afford a defense that might level the playing field with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
And it worked (for awhile). Lee had a lot of trouble affording the lawyers he needed. The result showed it: Lee was convicted, and got 360 months in prison.
A few years later, after Lee had filed and lost a 28 USC § 2255 motion, the Supreme Court ruled in Luis v. United States that freezing all of a defendant’s innocent assets violated the 6th Amendment. Based on that decision, the 4th Circuit ruled that criminal forfeiture statutes could not reach assets that might be substituted for forfeitable assets if the defendant lost.
Based on these decisions, Lee filed a 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus, arguing that under the 28 USC § 2255(e) savings clause, he could use the § 2241 to demand a new trial, because the seizure had violated the 6th Amendment and statute. Last week, the 4th Circuit shot him down.
“Actual innocence” is important for procedural reasons as well as substantive ones…
The Circuit followed its three-part test defining the “limited circumstances” under which § 2255 will be “inadequate to test the legality of the prisoner’s detention.” First, at the time of conviction, the settled law of the Circuit or the Supreme Court must have established the conviction’s legality. Second, after the prisoner’s direct appeal and previous § 2255 motion, the substantive law must have changed so that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is no longer criminal or the sentence is illegally extended. And third, the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h) because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.
The 4th said a constitutional issue can never be heard on a § 2241 motion, because a § 2255 motion is intended for adjudicating such claims. What’s more, Lee was not claiming that he was actually innocent of the offense or sentence, but rather that taking his money was a fundamental defect in the proceeding. That is not good enough for a § 2241, the Circuit said.
Farkas v. Warden, Case No. 19-6347, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27233 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2020)
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
CONFUSING WISHES FOR FACTS
I had the unpleasant task last week of telling a parent that her daughter had no procedural means of attacking her 6-year old conviction and sentence. The mother replied, ”But there has to be a loophole! There’s always a loophole!”
Loopholes are like the Tooth Fairy. They’re fun to believe in, and pretending they exist is harmless enough. But you don’t want to factor the Tooth Fairy’s largesse into your retirement planning for one simple, very good reason. The Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist.
Likewise, contrary to the exclamation of my inmate’s mother, there does NOT have to be a loophole. Not confusing wishes for facts was the hard lesson Jason Lund learned last week.
In 2008, Jason got an enhanced sentence under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) because a death resulted from use of the drugs he was convicted of selling. But in 2014, the Supreme Court held in Burrage v. United States that finding a defendant guilty of the “death results” penalty requires proof that the harm would not have occurred in the absence of – that is, but for – the defendant’s conduct.
Jason filed a 2255 motion in 2016. But 28 USC 2255(f) sets strict deadlines for filing the motion, in this case one year from the date Burrage was decided or a year after discovering new evidence. Jason was well beyond both deadlines. But in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in McQuiggin v. Perkins that if an inmate can show he or she is actually innocent, it “serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar… or… expiration of the statute of limitations. Jason argued that the Burrage ruling made him actually innocent of the enhanced sentence, so his untimely filing did not matter.
Some of the people who say this really are. For others, it’s just procedural…
The actual innocence gateway exception is “grounded in the ‘equitable discretion’ of habeas courts to see that federal constitutional errors do not result” in innocent people being imprisoned. To establish actual innocence, a movant must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if the new evidence or new legal holding were applied.
Last week, the 7th Circuit ruled that Jason was too late. It held that the actual innocence exception certainly does apply where a petitioner has new evidence, like DNA evidence, that proves him innocent. But “actual innocence” cannot be used to excuse untimely filing where a subsequent change to the scope of a law renders the conduct for which a movant was convicted to be no longer criminal.
The problem, the 7th said, was that Jason was trying to use Burrageboth as his claim for actual innocence and his claim for relief on the merits. A petitioner’s actual innocence claim and claim for relief on the merits cannot be the same. If it could, “it would completely undermine the statute of limitations for bringing initial 2255 motions within one year from the date a new right is recognized by the Supreme Court.”
The Court explained the actual innocence exception is merely a gateway through which a court can consider a petitioner’s otherwise barred claims on their merits. The whole idea is that a petitioner will have underlying claims separate from the actual innocence claim, and will use the actual innocence claim solely to excluse an untimely filing. The Supreme Court has not recognized a petitioner’s right to habeas relief based on a stand-alone claim of actual innocence.
The point of the exception, the Circuit said, is to ensure that federal constitutional errors do not result in innocent people being locked up. This suggests that the underlying claim must be a constitutional claim, rather than a statutory claim like Burrage.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
3RD CIRCUIT HOLDS “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE NEWLY DISCOVERED
The Supreme Court ruled in Schlup v. Delo that an actual innocence claim was an exception to habeas corpus “procedural default.” More recently, McQuiggin v. Perkins held that actual innocence excuses filing a habeas petition late. But courts of appeal have wrestled with whether the evidence of actual innocence has to be newly discovered, or just be evidence the jury never saw before.
Some of the people who say this really are...
The 3rd Circuit weighed in on the issue last week, joining the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 9th in holding that the evidence the petitioner relied on could be simply evidence the jury never saw before, even if it was evidence that the defendant knew about, but his lawyer never presented.
The 3rd said, “in a case where the underlying constitutional violation claimed is ineffective assistance of counsel premised on a failure to present evidence, a requirement that the new evidence be unknown to the defense at the time of trial would operate as a roadblock to the actual innocence gateway. To overcome this roadblock, we now hold that when a petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to discover or present to the fact-finder the very exculpatory evidence that demonstrates his actual innocence, such evidence constitutes new evidence for purposes of the Schlup actual innocence gateway.”
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
A TALE OF TWO GIRLFRIENDS
Jim and his girlfriend “Sweetie” had a brief fling a few years ago. The allure wore off for Sweetie pretty quickly. Now sick of Jim, she moved a thousand miles away.
Jim did not take rejection well. He began sending emails, texts and Facebook messages demanding that Sweetie apologize to him for breaking it off.
When she refused, Jim used social media to portray Sweetie as a stripper and prostitute, sending the lies to her new employer and generally spreading the meme to the four corners of the Internet. He told Sweetie and her family he would keep it up until she apologized. Sweetie found it pretty upsetting.
Jim was charged with interstate stalking, which he moved to dismiss on the grounds he had a 1st Amendment right to say whatever he wanted to. Problem is that the law is a bit more complex. It holds that “speech integral to criminal conduct” is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The district court said Jim was committing extortion under 18 USC 875(d), making prosecution of him for interstate stalking permissible despite his asserted 1st Amendment right.
Jim argued that he was not extorting Sweetie, because extortion required that one person threaten to injure the reputation of another with the intent to extort a “thing of value” from that person. Jim said all he wanted was an apology, and, after all, what’s an apology worth, anyway?
Last week, the 8th Circuit upheld his conviction. The Court found that a “thing of value” includes intangibles. The focus, the Court said, is on whether the defendant thinks what is demanded is of value. Here, regardless of how much the apology might really have been worth, it was clearly a “thing of value” to Jim. Thus, he was extorting Sweetie, and his speck thus was integral to a crime.
Meanwhile, a couple hundred miles away from Jim and Sweetie, Rod had struck up an Internet friendship with a 17-year girl in another state. The young girlfriend, whom we’ll simply call “Honeybunch,” lived in an unhappy home environment and was aching to get out of there. Rod sent her money for a bus ticket to come to live with him several states away in Texas (where the romance, he conceded, would have included some “honey” from Honeybunch in the form of consensual and loving sex).
The plan fell apart before Honeybunch could even get as far as the state line. Honeybunch’s family found her missing, and panicked. When they found Rod’s phone number among things Honeybunch had left behind, they called him. Rod counseled the girl by phone to go back home, which she did.
That was not enough for the family, whose panic quickly turned to ire. They convinced the feds to prosecute Rod under the Mann Act, for knowingly transporting someone under 18 in interstate commerce “with intent that the individual engage in… sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” The age of consent in Honeybunch’s home state was 18, but Rod argued that any sex would have occurred in Texas, where the age of consent was 17. Rod argued the 1st Amendment protected his communications with Honeybunch, because he did not urge her to do anything that would have been a crime where he proposed doing it.
Last week, the 8th Circuit denied Rod’s 2255 motion, too. Sure, it agreed, the age of consent in Texas is 17 years old. But it found another Texas statute that made it a crime to “employ, authorize, or induce a child younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct,” including “sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse.” Rod was right that Texas allowed him to have sex with a 17-year old, but Texas nevertheless made it a crime for him to say or do anything that might convince the 17-year old to have sex with him.
So in Texas, you can have sex with a 17-year old if you just lie there. But if you’re at all interested, you could end up with 10 years in federal prison. Charles Dickens was right: “‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass – a idiot’.”
11th CIRCUIT GOES ROGUE AGAIN, THIS TIME ON ‘VIOLENT FORCE’
Since the Supreme Court decided in the 2010 Curtis Johnson v. United States case that “force” meant “violent force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person,” circuits have been determining whether force was “violent” by asking whether it was likely to cause pain. Trust the 11th Circuit to upend that logical approach with a 67-page en banc decision holding that everyone is wrong: violent force only needs to be “capable” of causing physical pain. Degree of force no longer matters: only the effect does.
The ruling came last Friday in a reversal of an earlier 3-judge decision that Florida’s felony battery offense is categorically not a violent crime.
Five dissenting judges point out that Florida felony battery “criminalizes a mere touching that happens to cause great bodily harm… A mere touching is not violent—it does not involve a substantial degree of force. A tap on a jogger’s shoulder that happens to cause the jogger to suffer a concussion is still just a tap.” The dissenters complaint that “the Majority’s decision cannot be reconciled with Curtis Johnson… Johnson explain[s] over the course of several pages that “physical force” refers to a threshold degree of force. But the Majority, reading this lengthy analysis out of Curtis Johnson, creates a new test for “physical force” that disregards degree of force. Although the Supreme Court has cautioned against reading a statement from one of its opinions “in isolation” rather than “alongside” the rest of the opinion, the Majority does exactly that.”
We have written before about the Circuit split on whether a prisoner can use a 28 USC 2241 to challenge his or her guilt when there has been an intervening change in statute. Nine circuits say the saving clause of 28 USC 2255(e) permits it. Two, the 10th and 11th, do not.
A case challenging the 11th Circuit’s ban is awaiting grant of review by the Supreme Court, and some heavyweight legal talent is lining up to urge the issue on the high court. Meanwhile, the 3rd Circuit last week recognized the circuit split while reaffirming its commitment to maintaining 2241 as a safety valve.
Gary Bruce was involved in a rather ugly robbery/murder years ago in Tennessee. Among other crimes, he was convicted of witness tampering murder, for killing to “prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense.” Gary’s jury was not instructed at all about whether it had to find Gary thought the witnesses might communicate with a federal officer. At the time, the law said that “no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance… that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government.”
Later, the Supreme Court held that the statute required that the jury find that it was “reasonably likely under the circumstances that (in the absence of the killing) at least one of the relevant communications would have been made to a federal officer.” This was a new rule of substantive law not dictated by precedent existing at the time Gary was convicted, that narrowed the scope of the statute.
The Court said it permitted a 2241 when two conditions are satisfied: First, a prisoner must assert a “claim of actual innocence’ on the theory that… an intervening Supreme Court decision” has changed the statutory case law in a way that applies retroactively in cases on collateral review. Second, the prisoner must have had no earlier opportunity to challenge the conviction with a 2255 since the intervening Supreme Court decision issued.
‘Actual innocence’ is a standard all circuits apply to 2241 motions…
Some other circuits allowing 2241s have stricter standards, requiring that prisoners show that circuit precedent foreclosed the issue at the time the 2255 was due. Here, Gary’s brother Bob was locked up in a different circuit that had such a rule. The 3rd noted the unfairness of the disparate treatment, noting that while Congress enacted Sec. 2255 to “alleviate the inefficiencies that attend 2241’s… rules, now those difficulties have returned, though in a new form. And so they will remain, at least until Congress or the Supreme Court speaks on the matter.”
What we mean is in post-conviction proceedings on federal convictions, the best case on the planet (imagine a newly-discovered busload of nuns who all swear they saw you helping your mother weed her garden 50 miles from the back that was being robbed at the same time) does not help you if you have no procedural course for getting back into court. And the procedural snares of 28 USC § 2255 are many and varied.
