Tag Archives: recklessness

A Couple of ‘Shorts’ – Update for July 9, 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.

GRANDMA GOES HOME AS ADVOCATES BEAT UP BIDEN ON HOME CONFINEMENT

short210709FAMM, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Justice Action Network last week called on President Biden to use his clemency authority to prevent about 4,000 people now on CARES Act home confinement from being sent back to prison when the pandemic ends.  Nothing new there. But then, into the middle of this brouhaha stepped the Bureau of Prisons.

A month ago, Gwen Levi, a Baltimore grandmother who had been sent to home confinement under the CARES Act, was returned to prison by the BOP.  Her offense was “escape.” In the BOP, that means that she was taking a computer class, and during class, she turned off her phone. The halfway house called to check on her whereabouts, but she did not call back until after class. For that, she went back to prison for another eight years.

The BOP didn’t reckon on the media outcry. After all, who doesn’t like grandmas? The Washington Post trumpeted, “A grandmother didn’t answer her phone during a class. She was sent back to prison.” USA Today blared, “‘Scared and confused’: Elderly inmate sent home during COVID is back in prison after going to computer class.” A grandmother didn’t answer her phone during a class in Baltimore. The Mayor of Baltimore issued a statement complaining that

Following Gwen’s early release from prison last year, the 76-year-old chose to rewrite her story by volunteering for advocacy organizations around Baltimore. But while grace is a rare occurrence, judgment in America flows abundantly. Gwen recently made national headlines after being sent back to prison for failing to answer her phone during a computer class. This lack of patience and empathy was wrong…

Last Tuesday, Gwen’s district court judge granted her compassionate release.
levi210709

However, the media hue-and-cry may be having an effect. Every movement needs an icon, and Gwen may be it. For months advocacy groups have been asking Biden to address the issue, resulting from a Trump DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo holding that CARES Act home confinees should be sent back to prison once the COVID-19 emergency ended. Biden has not withdrawn the memo, despite bipartisan calls for the Administration to do so.

Maybe now, the issue will get traction.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), who led a letter of 28 House Democrats in April calling for the policy to be rescinded, “is disappointed he hasn’t officially extended the home confinement program,” a spokesperson said. Other advocates are considering it a misstep for Biden to not discuss the program as part of the administration’s crime portfolio.

A BOP spokeswoman said, “This will be an issue only after the pandemic is over. The president recently extended the national emergency and the Department of Health and Human Services has said the public health crisis is likely to last for the rest of the year.” The White House revisits the emergency declaration every three months, leaving the former prisoners in a constant state of limbo. The next deadline is later this month.

“This is not a heavy lift for the Biden administration. All these people were moved out of prison because Trump officials felt it was safe enough for them to go home, said Holly Harris, president and executive director of Justice Action Network. “What more political cover does President Biden possibly need? Lawmakers and advocates from both sides of the aisle agree: it’s time for President Biden to grant clemency to these men and women so they can fully connect with their families, secure jobs, and move on with their lives. Anything less is unconscionable.”

ABA Journal, Judge rules for grandma on home confinement after arrest for not answering calls during computer class (July 7, 2021)

ACLU, Bipartisan Organizations Call on President Biden to Immediately Prevent Thousands on Home Confinement From Being Sent Back to Federal Prison (June 28, 2021)

The Hill, Biden faces criticism for not extending home confinement for prisoners (June 26, 2021)

New York Times, Thousands of Prisoners Were Sent Home Because of Covid. They Don’t Want to Go Back (June 27, 2021)

BORDEN NOTCHES ITS FIRST COLLATERAL WIN

Kristen Brenner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Because of her prior convictions, the government sought to get Krissy a minimum 15-year Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. Her district court refused the government, however, agreeing with Krissy that her Tennessee reckless aggravated assault conviction (related to impaired driving) was not a crime of violence.

Reckless, maybe... but not c a crime of violence,
Reckless, maybe… but not a crime of violence,

The government appealed, but the case was held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court decision in Borden v. United States. After that June 10 decision held that crimes that could be committed with a “reckless” intent did not fit the “crime-of-violence elements” definition, the government moved to dismiss its appeal in Krissy’s case.

Last week, the 6th Circuit dismissed the government appeal. “Because we apply the law as it currently stands, Borden controls Brenner’s case. Borden analyzed the very statute under which she was convicted, which refers to a person ‘recklessly committing an assault’… Under Borden, that mens rea is insufficient.”

United States v. Brenner, Case No 19-5647, 2021 US App LEXIS 19657 (6th Cir. July 1, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

‘Reckless Is Not Violent,’ Supremes Say – Update for June 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.

SCOTUS TAKES ANOTHER SWIPE AT ACCA

The Supreme Court last Thursday further limited the types of offenses that constitute crimes of violence for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In a 5-4 ruling in favor of the prisoner in Borden v. United States, the majority (if you can call it that) ruled that crimes that can be committed through recklessness rather only through specific intent are not crimes of violence.

borden210614Justice Elena Kagan wrote an opinion that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas did not join Kagan’s opinion but concurred in the result. So for you math-inspired people, that makes the final tally on the decision 4-4-1. At the Supreme Court, the fact that five Justices agreed with the result makes that result the winner. However, it can complicate figuring out what opinion as to how the Court got there is in the majority. That’s the Marks v. United States problem, boys and girls, and that is a topic for another time.

For now, we’re focusing on Borden. The case involved the definition of “violent felony” set out in 18 USC § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), defined as any felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

The defendant, Chuck Borden, pled guilty to an 18 USC § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession charge, which the district court enhanced under the ACCA to a statutory minimum of 15 years, The defense argued the ACCA did not apply because one of the three priors relied on by the district court was a Tennessee conviction for reckless aggravated assault. That crime can result from reckless conduct – a lower legal standard than “purposefully or knowingly” assaulting someone. Chuck argued that only purposeful or knowing conduct can meet ACCA’s definition of “violent felony.” Mere recklessness, he argued, does not qualify.

bordennunss210615The decision turned on the meaning of “physical force against the person of another.” The government argued that “against” had a meaning similar to “I tripped and fell against the guy ahead of me in line,” suggesting referring to one body contacting another. That way, if you were driving recklessly, and careened into a busload of nuns, the crime would be an ACCA predicate, because you employed physical force against a busload of “anothers.”

The majority, however, agreed with the defendant that “against” means something more. “The phrase ‘against another,’ when modifying the ‘use of force,’ demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual,” the opinion holds. “Reckless conduct is not aimed in that prescribed manner.”

Justice Thomas concurred, but did so not because of the definition of “against.” Instead, he argued that the phrase “use of physical force” is limited to intentional acts designed to cause harm.

habeas_corpusThe immediate question raised by Borden is whether current prisoners can use it to attack now-illegal sentences. Because the decision does not make a ruling on constitutional law, it will not be retroactive under 28 USC 2255(f)(3). However, it probably is attackable under 28 USC 2241, relying on the § 2255(e) “saving clause.”

Ohio State University law prof Doug Berman said in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, “I am truly making a wild guess here, and I am eager to hear from folks in the field about whether they agree that only hundreds of sentences may be potentially disrupted by Borden or if in fact it could end up being thousands. Whatever the exact number, as I will explain in a future post, every ACCA defendant with a viable Borden claim should be thankful for the First Step Act making ‘compassionate release’ motions available to bring directly to court.”

Borden v. United States, Case No 19-5410, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 2990 (June 10, 2010)

Sentencing Law and Policy, How many federal prisoners might now be serving illegal sentences after Borden? (June 11, 2021)

SCOTUSBlog.com, Court limits definition of “violent felony” in federal gun-possession penalty (June 10, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

A Short Rocket – Update for March 12, 2020

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.

WE’VE GOT THE SHORTS…

rocket-312767Arson: In a decision approving filing a second-or-successive 2255 motion, the 6th Circuit last week held that because United States v. Davis is retroactive, a defendant who was convicted of 18 USC 844(i) arson and an 18 USC 924(c) use of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail) could challenge the 924(c) conviction.

The 6th said the defendant’s “924(c) conviction was premised upon his use of a destructive device in furtherance of the 844(i) offense… The question is whether 844(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another… Arson under 844(i) does not appear to qualify as a crime of violence under 924(c)(3)(A) because it can be committed against “any building… used in interstate or foreign commerce,” including one owned by the arsonist… That means defendant’s 924 conviction must have been based on 924(c)(3)(B), which Davis invalidated…”

In re Franklin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6672 (6th Cir. Mar, 3, 2020)

manyguns190423Waiver: The defendant pled guilty to violating 18 USC 924(c) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence — theft from a firearms dealer under 18 USC 922(u). He filed a 2255 motion claiming after United States v. Davis, a 922(u) violation no longer counts as a crime of violence. But his plea agreement included the waiver of his right to contest the conviction and sentence “on any ground, including any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel relates directly to this waiver or its negotiation, including any appeal… or any post-conviction proceeding, including but not limited to, a proceeding under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255…”

Last week, the 7th Circuit ruled this collateral-attack waiver was valid and barred a Davis challenge to the conviction and sentences.

Oliver v United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6760 (7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2020)

Fair Sentencing Act: The Defendants were sentenced for crack offenses under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) prior to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. After the First Step Act passed, they applied for sentence reductions. The government; argued they were not eligible because the amounts of crack they were found to have been involved with at sentencing were so great that their sentence exposure did not change.

crackpowder160606The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week held that the defendants were eligible. It held that “the weight of authority supports Defendants’ interpretation. “[T]he majority of district court cases in this Circuit” have found “that a defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act based upon his offense of conviction, as opposed to his actual conduct… Decisions from other circuits also favor Defendants’ interpretation. See United States v. White, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119164 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2019) (collecting over 40 cases across the nation that agree with defendants’ interpretation of ‘covered offense’).”

The EDNY court said it “joins the chorus of district courts to hold that eligibility under… the First Step Act is based on the crime of conviction and not a defendant’s actual conduct. Both defendants were convicted of violating 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A), the statutory penalties for which were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. They are both therefore eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.”

United States v. Pressley, 2020 US Dist. LEXIS 34973 (EDNY Feb 28, 2020)

ACCA Recklessness: The Supreme Court last week granted certiorari to a case asking whether an offense that involves physical force that is used recklessly – that is, conduct undertaken with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk – is a crime of violence for Armed Career Criminal Act purposes.

A prior case asking the same issue was recently dismissed after the defendant/petitioner died.

Borden v. United States, Case No. 19-5410 (certiorari granted Mar. 2, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

1st Circuit Holds Recklessness Not Enough for ACCA Crime of Violence – Update for July 6, 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.

LISAStatHeader2smallJACKASS

Jackass170707Remember back in 2000 when MTV decided to break Masterpiece Theatre’s hammerlock on classy television programming? The result was Jackass, an ill-conceived piece of televised mayhem in which the show’s participants performed all manner of risky and stupid stunts on themselves and each other. Their viewers  – being not just kids but dumb kids – often imitated what they saw on the show.

Much of what the ensemble cast did to each other – such as branding one participant on his bare kiester with a hot iron – easily blew past  negligence and gross negligence standards on the way to sheer recklessness. And that brings us to today’s case.

George Bennett was convicted of being a felon in possession of as gun under 18 USC 922(g), among other crimes. Because the sentencing court concluded that George had three prior “crimes of violence” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act, he was sentenced under 18 USC 924(e) to 25 years. Without the ACCA specification, the most he could have gotten for the 922(g) was 10 years.

The legal landscape began shifting with the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States that a portion of the ACCA – the “residual clause,” which pretty much defined a violent crime as one in which something bad could have happened, intended or not – was unconstitutionally vague. After Johnson, George filed a motion under 28 USC 2255 for relief from the ACCA sentence, arguing that his priors, all of which were aggravated assault under Maine law, were not “crimes of violence” within the meaning of the ACCA.

An ACCA “crime of violence” is an offense that (1) was burglary, arson, extortion or use of explosives (called the “Enumerated Clause”); or (2) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another (called the “Force Clause”).

George argued in his 2255 motion that Maine’s aggravated assault statute went beyond the Force Clause, in that one could commit aggravated assault through reckless conduct but without intent. The district court agreed with George, but the government appealed.

branding170707
Cast member gets branded.

On Wednesday, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court, not necessarily agreeing with George that recklessness was not enough to come within the Force Clause, but not being sure that it did not. In a 54-page exposition of the state of the law on recklessness and the Force Clause, the Circuit concluded that “the text and purpose of ACCA leave us with a ‘grievous ambiguity,’ as to whether ACCA‘s definition of a “violent felony” encompasses aggravated assault in Maine, insofar as that offense may be committed with a mens rea of mere recklessness, as opposed to purpose or knowledge, we… must apply the rule of lenity… and, in consequence, we conclude that Bennett’s two prior Maine convictions for aggravated assault do not so qualify…”

Maine defines aggravated assault to include “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing” bodily injury to another. Maine defines the mens rea of recklessness as acting when a person “consciously disregards a risk.”

violence161122The problem, the Court said, is that “Congress chose in ACCA to denominate ‘the use of force against another’ as a single, undifferentiated element.” The question thus becomes whether “the relevant volitional act that an offense must have as an element for ACCA purposes is not just the ‘use . . . of physical force,’ but the ‘use . . . of physical force against the person of another.” The injury caused to another by the volitional action in a reckless assault, the Court said, is by definition neither the perpetrator’s object nor a result known to the perpetrator to be practically certain to occur. For that reason, a voluntary reckless act – the Court used the example of throwing a plate against a wall in anger, resulting the splinters flying off and injuring one’s spouse. – may endanger another without deliberately endangering another.

The Court could as easily have used the Jackass “branding iron” skit.

The Court traced all of the arguments for and against George’s position, but concluded that “the canon against surplusage does at least suggest that the follow-on ‘against’ phrase in ACCA must be conveying something that the phrase ‘use . . . of physical force’ does not… Nevertheless, we can hardly be sure.”

The Rule of Lenity holds that a court should interpret any ambiguity in a criminal statute in the defendant’s favor. The Circuit said, “We are considering here a sentencing enhancement of great consequence. We should have confidence, therefore, that we are doing Congress’s will in applying this enhancement here.”

The Bennett decision is long but consequential, treating in detail a substantial question on interpreting “use of physical force against the person of another.” The issue may well be the next battleground in ACCA and “crime of violence” litigation.

Bennett v. United States, Case No. 16-2039 (1st Cir., July 5, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small