Tag Archives: aiding and abetting

9th Won’t Extend Taylor to Aiding and Abetting – Update for August 17, 2023

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.

9TH CIRCUIT HOLDS HOBBS ACT AIDER AND ABETTOR COMMITS CRIME OF VIOLENCE

Call me dense (you wouldn’t be the first), but I have never understood how an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery could not be a crime of violence – as the Supreme Court held in United States v. Taylor – but aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c)(1)(A)(3).

hobbsact200218In Taylor, the Supremes held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence, because one could attempt a Hobbs Act robbery without actually attempting, threatening or using violence. If, for example, Peter Perp is arrested in a jewelry store parking lot with masks and a gun as he approaches the front door, he could be convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery without ever having gotten to the point of attempting to threaten or employ violence at all. In fact, the people inside the store might not even be aware that they were about to be robbed. Sure, Petey can go down for an attempted Hobbs Act robbery (and get plenty of time for that), but he could not be convicted of a § 924(c) offense.

Taylor seemed to focus on what elements would have to be proven for the particular defendant to be convicted of the Hobbs Act crime. The principals in the crime – the guys who actually waved guns in the jewelry store clerks’ faces – must be shown to have employed violence or threatened to do so. But how about the guy sitting behind the wheel of the getaway car? He’s aiding and abetting, and certainly can be convicted of the Hobbs Act offense just like the gun-wielders. But that’s not the point. The point is whether he is also guilty of a 924(c) offense, too.

Leon Eckford is as disappointed as I am (maybe more, because he’s doing the time) that the 9th Circuit went the other way on my pet legal argument the other day. Leon pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting two Hobbs Act jewelry store robberies. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under § 924(c).

aiding230522On appeal, Leon argues that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence and therefore could not serve as a predicate for his § 924(c) conviction and mandatory minimum sentence. A couple of days ago, the 9th rejected his argument.

The Circuit claimed that Leon’s argument “misunderstands the nature of aiding and abetting liability. At common law, aiding and abetting was considered a separate offense from the crime committed by the principal actor, but “we no longer distinguish between principals and aiders and abettors; principals and accomplices “are equally culpable and may be convicted of the same offense.”

The 9th complained that Leon “would have us return to the era when we treated principals and accomplices as guilty of different crimes. We have long moved past such distinctions for purposes of determining criminal culpability, although the terminology may be useful for other reasons.” This is nonsense. Leon freely admitted that his aiding and abetting the Hobbs Act robberies made him as guilty of the offense as if he had been inside the stores. He did not ask to be treated as having been convicted of a “different crime.”

Instead, as the Circuit admitted without appreciating its significance, the law has moved past distinguishing principal versus accomplice “for purposes of determining criminal culpability,” that is, for figuring out whether Leon was guilty of a Hobbs Act offense. But, as the 9th admitted, “the terminology may be useful for other reasons.”

violence180508Primary among those reasons is to determine whether the defendant’s commission of the Hobbs Act was a crime of violence. This is not to say that the court should focus on what Leon himself did. The categorical approach to determining whether aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is violent does not look at the facts of the case. Instead, it focuses on what must be proven to prove a defendant was an aider-and-abettor.

The 9th Circuit noted that it had “repeatedly upheld § 924(c) convictions based on accomplice liability.” So what? The 9th Circuit had previously held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence until Taylor reversed the holding. Being wrong once is hardly an argument that you aren’t wrong now.

The Circuit argues that nothing in its analysis in Leon’s case is “clearly irreconcilable with Taylor. Taylor dealt with an inchoate crime, an attempt, and does not undermine our precedent on aiding and abetting liability. There are fundamental differences between attempting to commit a crime, and aiding and abetting its commission… Chief among these differences is that in an attempt case there is no crime apart from the attempt, which is the crime itself, whereas aiding and abetting is a different means of committing a single crime, not a separate offense itself. Put differently, proving the elements of an attempted crime falls short of proving those of the completed crime, whereas a conviction for aiding and abetting requires proof of all the elements of the completed crime plus proof of an additional element: that the defendant intended to facilitate the commission of the crime.

hobbs230316The 9th held that “[o]ne who aids and abets the commission of a violent offense has been convicted of the same elements as one who was convicted as a principal; the same is not true of one who attempts to commit a violent offense. Accordingly, we conclude that our precedent is not clearly irreconcilable with Taylor.”

But if 924(c) is intended to fix extra liability for using a gun in a crime of violence, the element that the defendant employed or threatened violence should be required.

United States v. Eckford, Case No. 17-50167, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21175 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Puts Flesh on ‘Aid and Abet’ Bones – Update for May 22, 2023

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.

WHO CARES ABOUT TWITTER AND ISIS, ANYWAY?

aiding230522The Supreme Court has awakened from its slumber, issuing six opinions last Thursday as it begins its annual sprint to finish its work by June 30th. None of the six was a criminal case, but the Court did decide an important question about the liability of social media platforms like Twitter, Meta and Google for spreading terrorism-related content posted by ISIS and its fellow travelers.

Under 18 USC § 2333, U.S. nationals who have been “injured… by reason of an act of international terrorism” may sue for damages both from the terrorists themselves and “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” The plaintiffs in Twitter v. Taamneh argued that social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by letting the terrorists use social media platforms to recruit new terrorists and raise funds.

Recognize the old legal chestnut “aid and abet?” Ever since United States v. Taylor held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence that could support an 18 USC § 924(c) conviction (which comes with a mandatory consecutive sentence starting at five years), I have wondered why the same analysis wouldn’t hold that aiding and abetting a crime of violence was not itself a crime of violence.

In Taamneh, the Court observed that nothing in the statute defines ‘aids and abets’, but the term “is a familiar common-law term and thus presumably ‘brings the old soil’ with it.” Taamneh holds that

overly broad liability [for aiding and abetting] would allow for one person [to] be made… a felon against his or her consent, and by the mere rashness or precipitancy or overheated zeal of another… To keep aiding-and-abetting liability grounded in culpable misconduct, criminal law thus requires that a defendant in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed before he could be held liable. In other words, the defendant has to take some “affirmative act” with the intent of facilitating the offense’s commission. Such intentional participation can come in many forms, including abetting, inducing, encouraging, soliciting, or advising the commission of the offense, such as through words of encouragement or driving the getaway car.

intentions230522The ‘so what’ to all of this is that under Taylor, an attempt to commit a crime of violence was held not to be a crime of violence itself under the elements clause. “Yes, to secure a conviction the government must show an intention to take property by force or threat, along with a substantial step toward achieving that object,” the Taylor Court said. “But an intention is just that, no more. And whatever a substantial step requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against another person or his property.”

The Taamneh Court suggests that “words of encouragement” – such as sitting around drinking a few beers and telling your buddy that robbing the cellphone store tomorrow sounds like a great idea could make you an aider and abettor if the next day he takes down the Verizon outlet at gunpoint. The Taylor court said that if you could be convicted of the underlying crime without attempting, threatening or carrying out an act of violence, you could not be held liable for an 18 USC § 924 offense because of that conviction.

aidandabet230522Like an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery could be committed without the guilty party attempting, threatening or committing an act of violence. Just ask the guy drinking the beer. Or the one who holds your beer while you commit the Hobbs Act crime.

I believe that Taamneh hastens the day that “aiding and abetting” a crime of violence may join “attempting” a crime of violence as falling short of supporting a mandatory consecutive 18 USC § 924(c) sentence.

Twitter, Inc v. Taamneh, Case No 21-1496, 2023 US LEXIS 2060 (May 18, 2023)

United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Some extended discussion of criminal doctrines as SCOTUS unanimously dismisses federal tort suit against Twitter alleging “aid” to ISIS (May 18, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Is Trying To Be Violent All It Takes? – Update for December 8, 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.

AIDING, ABETTING, ATTEMPTING, AND GUNNING

drugripoff211208Gary D. Harris got convicted of aiding and abetting 2nd-degree murder, aiding and abetting attempted robbery, and aiding and abetting using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He got hammered: 420 months for the aiding and abetting murder, and an extra 60 months for the 18 USC § 924(c) charge.

Gary filed a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255, but it failed like most of them do. After United States v. Davis changed the landscape on what crimes were and were not crimes of violence, Gary filed a second 28 USC § 2255 motion.

A second § 2255 is not easy to file. A prisoner must get permission from the Court of Appeals to file one, and the standards are tough: you’ve got to have newly-discovered evidence that pretty much exonerates you or be the beneficiary of a new Supreme Court constitutional decision that is retroactive.

Gary asked the 6th Circuit for permission. Last week the 6th Circuit turned him down.

aidabett211208Gary argued his consecutive 60-month sentence had to be vacated because the district court might have imposed that sentence under the unconstitutionally vague “residual clause.” What’s more, Gary argued, his § 924(c) sentence couldn’t fall under the “elements clause” either, because neither his conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree murder nor his conviction for aiding and abetting attempted robbery could have constituted  a “crime of violence.”

It’s an appealing argument. It seems like you could aid or abet a violent crime without committing an act of violence yourself, like loaning your car to someone who uses it to rob a bank. But the Circuit didn’t buy it. “To justify relief under § 2255,” the 6th said, Gary had to not only show “constitutional error but also harm that he suffered from that error.” He had to “establish that he could not have been sentenced to the consecutive 60-month prison term under § 924(c)(3)’s elements clause. Because the 18 USC § 2113 crime of aiding and abetting attempted robbery necessarily constitutes a crime of violence,” the Court said, Gary cannot do that.

So aiding and abetting and attempted crimes of violence are themselves violent. And the Garys of the world lose. Right?

corso170112As Lee Corso might say, “Not so fast, my friend.” Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument in United States v. Taylor, where the issue is whether an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. The outcome of that case could reopen the aiding and abetting/attempt issue for hundreds, if not thousands, of inmates.

Justin Taylor was a Richmond, Virginia, pot dealer who robbed his buyers. This was a business model with great short-term results, but lousy for building customer loyalty. In August 2003, Justin and his sidekick planned just such a robbery. Justin sat in the getaway car while his partner pulled off the heist. The buyer was unwilling to turn over his money, so Justin’s buddy shot him dead. Justin and his partner fled without the money.

Justin was convicted of Hobbs Act conspiracy and a crime of violence under § 924(c). He got 20 years for the conspiracy and another ten for using a gun during a crime of violence.

violent160620After Davis, Justin filed a § 2255 motion, arguing that his crime – because it was a mere attempt – was not a crime of violence. That meant that the 10-year sentence for using the gun would have to be thrown out. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, vacating Justin’s § 924(c) conviction. “Because the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do not invariably require ‘the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,’ the offense does not qualify as a ‘crime of violence’ under § 924(c),” the appeals court said.

At yesterday’s argument, the Government complained that the Fourth Circuit “has excised from § 924(c) a core violent federal crime, based on the imaginary supposition that someone might commit it with a purely non-threatening attempted threat and yet somehow still come to the attention of law enforcement and be prosecuted.”

But just how imaginary would such a supposition? That question consumed the argument session.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point just what charges Woody Allen’s character in “Take the Money and Run” would have faced for handing the note “I have a gub” to the teller. Justin’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben, said the Woody Allen character’s actions would violate the Hobbs Act. “An attempt that fails is still prosecutable as an attempt,” Dreeben said.

Jail151220As always, the Government predicted the collapse of the judicial system and wholesale release of inmates if Justin Taylor’s view prevailed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was justifiably skeptical, pointed out that whether an attempt could support a § 924(c) was a question of enhancement, not convictability (my word, not the Justice’s). She said the government made it sound like a win for the defense would mean letting out “all of these horrible criminals,” but she emphasized that defendants still face substantial sentences on other charges, like Justin’s 20-year conspiracy term that isn’t at issue here.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about a ruling for the defense. “Congress obviously… imposed this because there’s a huge problem with violent crime committed with firearms and thought that the sentences were not sufficient to protect the public,” he said.

Harris v. United States, Case No. 21-5040, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35494 (6th Cir., December 1, 2021)

United States v. Taylor, Case No. 20-1459 (Supreme Court, oral argument December 7, 2021)

Bloomberg Law, Violent-Crime Definition Gets High-Court Hearing in Gun Case (December 7, 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

Handful of Interesting Criminal Issues at Supreme Court – Update for December 11, 2019

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.

INTERESTING TIMES AT SUPREME COURT

interesting191212Banister: The Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in Banister v. Davis, the case that asks whether a motion to amend a judgment denying a 28 USC § 2255 motion under F.R.Civ.P. 59(e) constitutes a second-or-successive § 2255 for which prior permission from the court of appeals is necessary under 28 USC § 2244.

Since the 2005 Gonzalez v. Crosby decision, a F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to set aside a § 2255 judgment has almost always been considered a second-or-successive § 2255 motion for which prior permission from the court of appeals is necessary. In the last few years, some courts of appeal have also held that even the lowly F.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to amend a judgment denying a § 2255 motion, which postpones the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, is a second-or-successive § 2255.

This has created a conundrum for § 2255 movants. If you file a Rule 59(e) motion in a § 2255 case, it delays your deadline for appealing. But if the court treats the 59(e) as a second-or-successive § 2255, it will not delay the appeal deadline. Often, by the time you find out the court is treating it as a second-or-successive, your appeal deadline will likely have passed.

By the end of last week’s argument session, there appeared to be at least six votes for the conclusion that prisoner Greg Banister’s Rule 59(e) motion was not a “second-or-successive” habeas petition. And although that result may not ultimately change the outcome of Greg’s quest for collateral post-conviction relief, it would avoid a significant narrowing of appeal rights for federal post-conviction relief.

Holguin-Hernandez: When a defendant asks for a lower sentence than the judge ultimately imposes, does the defendant have to object to the judge’s sentence after it is announced in order to preserve the issue for appellate review?

kabuki191212It always seemed foolish to me that after vigorously arguing a sentencing issue, only to have the court rule against you, you were compelled to renew your objection after the sentence was imposed. It was sort of kabuki theater that served no purpose other than to create a procedural trap for appellants whose trial lawyers had missed making the magical incantation. F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) provides that an error not brought to the trial court’s attention may be reviewed only for “plain error.” On the other hand, Rule 51(b) explains that a “party may preserve a claim of error by informing the court – when the court ruling is made or sought – of the action the party wishes the court to take.”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States to resolve a circuit split about exactly how these two rules play out against each other in federal sentencings. Holguin-Hernandez raised several claims under 18 USC § 3553(a) at sentencing, and then then appealed his additional 12-month sentence, arguing that it was unreasonable because it was “greater than necessary to effectuate the sentencing goals of … § 3553(a).” But the 5th Circuit held that because Mr. Holguin-Hernandez “failed to raise his challenges in the district court, our review is for plain error only.”

This might look like simple clear error. After all, Mr. Holguin-Hernandez surely did “raise his challenges” below – the court noted that “there is a circuit split” on the appropriate standard of review. In fact, the 5th Circuit has applied the rule that a defendant must register an objection to a sentence after it is imposed since its 2007 decision in United States v. Peltier.

Arguing for Mr. Holguin-Hernandez, attorney Kendall Turner agreed with my view (not that she cited me or anything, but any time a Supreme Court litigator and I make the same cogent argument, I feel good). She pointed out that Rule 51 plainly “tells parties how to preserve claims of error for appeal,” and “[t]here’s no need to tell the court twice.” There is no “practical merit” to a requirement that the defendant must again say “I object,” and, as Turner noted in rebuttal, the “[n]ine courts of appeals” that do not require a repeated objection “show that the Fifth Circuit’s rule is not necessary to the effective functioning of courts.” She emphasized the government’s agreement with this view, and said that the amicus was “tr[ying] to defend the judgment below on alternative grounds” – grounds that Justice Elena Kagan later pointed out are not “what the question presented is.”

slamdunk191212Post-argument commentators suggest the outcome is pretty cut-and-dried. The issue is not whether Mr. Holguin-Hernandez will carry the day, but rather – as Justice Sotomayor asked – how the Court will write its opinion to provide clear guidance to litigants.

Mojica: I am watching a petition for certiorari that is getting some traction. By now, it is clear that a conspiracy to commit a violent crime is not does not support an 18 USC § 924(c) conviction for use of a gun in a crime of violence. Post-conviction attorney Brandon Sample has filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the Supreme Court should resolve the question of whether aiding and abetting a crime of violence, which can be done without committing an act of violence, will support an 18 USC § 924 conviction.

This case has consequences for the crime of attempting to commit a crime of violence as well, and seems to be a logical extension of the implicit United States v. Davis holding last June that a conspiracy to commit a violent crime is not itself violent.

SCOTUSBlog, Argument analysis: Justices seem likely to side with Texas prisoner in important habeas case (Dec. 6)

SCOTUSBlog, Argument preview: Court likely to rule that a defendant preserves appellate challenge to length of sentence merely by arguing for lower one, but precise wording of opinion will be important (Dec. 11)

Mojica v. United States, Case No. 19-35 (Pet. for Certiorari, filed July 2, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root