Tag Archives: supreme court

Davis Lives! 924(c)(3)(B) Residual Clause Held to be Unconstitutionally Vague – Update for June 25, 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.

THE LAST JOHNSON DOMINO FALLS

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the categorical approach to judging whether offenses were crimes of violence, ruling that 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that “[i]n our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”

vagueness160110The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. Having applied the doctrine in two cases involving statutes that “bear more than a passing resemblance to § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause” – those being Johnson v. United States (Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause unconstitutional) and Sessions v. Dimaya (18 USC § 16(b) residual clause unconstitutional) – the Court completed its frolic through the residual clauses in the criminal code.

Courts use the “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualified as a violent felony or crime of violence. Judges had to disregard how the defendant actually committed the offense and instead imagine the degree of risk that would attend the idealized “‘ordinary case’ ” of the offense.

The lower courts have long held § 924(c)(3)(B) to require the same categorical approach. After the 11th Circuit’s decision in Ovalles, the government advanced the argument everywhere that for § 924(c)(3)(B), courts should abandon the traditional categorical approach and use instead a case-specific approach that would look at the defendant’s actual conduct in the predicate crime.

The Supreme Court rejected that, holding that while the case-specific approach would avoid the vagueness problems that doomed the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya and would not yield to the same practical and Sixth Amendment complications that a case-specific approach under the ACCA and § 16(b) would, “this approach finds no support in § 924(c)’s text, context, and history.”

hathanded190625The government campaign came to a head in Davis, a 5th Circuit case in which the appellate court said that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not a crime of violence, because it depended on the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause. The Dept. of Justice felt confident enough to roll the dice on certiorari. Yesterday, the DOJ had its hat handed to it.

Who does this benefit? Principally, it benefits anyone who received a § 924(c) enhanced sentence for an underlying conspiracy charge. Beyond that, it helps anyone else whose “crime of violence” depended on the discredited § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause.

The Court did not rule that Davis is retroactive for 28 USC § 2255  post-conviction collateral attack purposes, because that question was not before it. SCOTUS never rules on retroactivity in the same opinion that holds a statute unconstitutional. There is little doubt that, if Johnson was retroactive because of Welch, Davis will be held to be retro as well.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (Supreme Court, June 24, 2019)

ARE 59(e) MOTIONS ‘SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE’ 2255s?

A number of lower courts have ruled that an unsuccessful § 2255 movant who files a motion to alter the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be filing a second-or-successive § 2255 motion requiring prior approval.

HobsonsChoiceThis leaves § 2255 movants with a Hobson’s choice. Filing a 59(e) stays the time for filing a notice of appeal. But if the court sits on the 59(e) past the notice of appeal deadline, and then dismisses it as second-or-successive, the § 2255 movant has missed the notice of appeal deadline with the Court of Appeals. If the movant files a notice of appeal to preserve his or her rights, that nullifies the 59(e).

Right now, the only logical election is to ignore Rule 59(e) motions altogether.

Yesterday, the Court granted review in yet another “Davis” case, asking whether the 59(e) motion should be considered second or successive such that it requires the grant of permission under 28 USC § 2244. We’ll have an answer next year.

Banister v. Davis, Case No. 18-6943 (certiorari granted, June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Rules 922(g) Requires “Knowledge” – Update for June 24, 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.

KNOWNOTHING-ISM

In a decision that could be seismic for people convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Supreme Court last Friday ruled that it’s not enough to know that thing stuck in your pants is a gun. You have to know that you are part of a group the law says should not possess a gun. And, for that matter, you have to know you possess a firearm or ammo.

carriefgun170807Hamid Rehaif was in the country on a student visa that required him to be enrolled in college. He dropped out of school, but stuck around Florida to soak up the sun and fun. When ICE finally caught up to him, agents found him in possession of a half box of ammunition. Hamid had not really picked up on the “right to remain silent” thing, so he readily admitted going to a gun range. He was prosecuted for being illegally in possession of a firearm and ammo.

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), it is unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm or ammunition. But that’s only subsection (g)(1). There are eight other subsections as well, categories that include fugitives, people under indictment, people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, people who have been found by courts to be mentally incompetent, illegal aliens, stalkers… there’s a long list.

The government has always gotten away with proving that a defendant had a gun or ammo, and that he or she was a felon or something else on the list. The defendant had to know that that thing he had stuffed in his waistband was a gun. Beyond that, there was no knowledge requirement. A defendant who claimed not to know that he or she was in a prohibited class was just plain out of luck. What the defendant knew or did not know simply was irrelevant. That’s what happened to Hamid. He was fine busting a few caps at the gun range as long as he was in school (and thus compliant with the terms of his student visa). But as soon as he dropped out, his visa automatically expired, and his antics at the gun range became illegal. The district court, and the 11th Circuit, agreed (as did every circuit court in America) that Hamid’s awareness that he should limit his firearms training to Nerf weapons.

rangeThat has now changed. The Supreme Court ruled that in a prosecution under 18 USC 922(g) and 924(a)(2) (they go together), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he or she possessed a firearm and that the defendant knew he or she knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.

Whether a criminal statute requires the government to prove that the defendant acted knowingly, the Court said, is a question of congressional intent. There is a longstanding presumption that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” This is normally characterized as a “presumption in favor of scienter.”

In 922(g) and 924(a)(2), Justice Breyer wrote for the 7-2 decision, the statutory text supports the presumption. It specifies that a defendant commits a crime if he or she “knowingly” violates § 922(g), which makes possession of a firearm unlawful when the following elements are satisfied: (1) a status element; (2) a possession element (to “possess”); (3) a jurisdictional element (“in or affecting commerce”); and (4) a firearm element (a “firearm or ammunition”). Aside from the jurisdictional element, the Court said, § 922(g)’s text “simply lists the elements that make a defendant’s behavior criminal. The term ‘knowingly’ is normally read ‘as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime.’ And the ‘knowingly’ requirement clearly applies to 922(g)’s possession element, which follows the status element in the statutory text. There is no basis for interpreting ‘knowingly’ as applying to the second 922(g) element but not the first.

innocent161024What does this mean for the many felons-in-possession now in the system? It could be Bailey v. United States all over again, as people head back to court on 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions (where those are allowed) arguing that under the new statutory interpretation, they are actually innocent.

Justice Alito wrote a detailed and blistering dissent. He warned that the decision’s

practical effects will be far reaching and cannot be ignored. Tens of thousands of prisoners are currently serving sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). It is true that many pleaded guilty, and for most direct review is over. Nevertheless, every one of those prisoners will be able to seek relief by one route or another. Those for whom direct review has not ended will likely be entitled to a new trial. Others may move to have their convictions vacated under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and those within the statute of limitations will be entitled to relief if they can show that they are actually innocent of violating § 922(g), which will be the case if they did not know that they fell into one of the categories of persons to whom the offense applies… This will create a substantial burden on lower courts, who are once again left to clean up the mess the Court leaves in its wake as it moves on to the next statute in need of ‘fixing’.

Watch that space. This could be very interesting.

Rehaif v. United States, Case No. 17-9560 (Supreme Court, June 21, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Gundy Brings Forth a Mouse – Update for June 21, 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.

GUNDY – NO BANG BUT A WHIMPER

As soon as the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it had affirmed the 2nd Circuit by an 8-1 vote, I knew that the Justices had massaged the case – which was argued the first week of October 2018 – until they reduced the holding to something narrow enough that they could almost all agree.

mouse170706Petitioner Herman Gundy, a convicted sex offender, was convicted of failing to register under the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act. He had been convicted of the sex offense before SORNA passed, but Congress included in the bill a directive to the Attorney General to “specify the applicability” of SORNA’s registration requirements and “to prescribe rules for [their] registration.”

Under that delegated authority, the Attorney General issued a rule specifying that SORNA’s registration requirements apply in full to pre-Act offenders. This made Herman’s failure to register a crime. Both the District Court and the Second Circuit rejected Herman’s claim that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power when it authorized the Attorney General to essentially determine what act or non-act constituted a crime.

Gundy was considered to be a big case, because the laxity with which Congress has delegated authority to the Executive Branch to make crimes cuts a broad swath across the law. The DEA has the power to declare an analogue drug to be a controlled substance. The ATF has the power to declare a little bent piece of metal a “machinegun” because it can be inserted into an AR-15 to make it fire on full auto. In fact, there are over 1,500 regulations enacted by Executive Branch agencies that carry criminal consequences.

Many observers thought Gundy could be a watershed, a moment when the Court would finally say “enough” to the willy-nilly delegation of power without limits. The fact that SCOTUS has taken so long to decide an early-term case suggested that there was a lot of dissention among the Justices, and that the decision, when it finally came, would be a whopper.

No such luck. Instead the Justices parsed the history of SORNA, and found that Congress had always meant for SORNA’s registration requirements to apply to pre-Act offenders, based on the Act’s statutory purpose, its definition of sex offender, and its history. But Congress was afraid that registering so many people right away would not be feasible. SORNA, the Court said, created a “practical problem[ ]” because it would require “newly registering or reregistering a large number of pre-Act offenders.”

Congress therefore asked the Attorney General, who was already charged with responsibility for SORNA implementation, to examine the issues and to apply the new registration requirements accordingly.” On that understanding, the Court said, the “Attorney General’s role… was important but limited: It was to apply SORNA to pre-Act offenders as soon as he thought it feasible to do so.”

There, the Court said. The AG only did what Congress clearly wanted done. Problem solved.

can190620What really happened is the Court was able to find justification in this instance for the AG doing what he did, rather than addressing the broader question. (Of course, lurking beneath the surface was the unspoken fear that declaring anything that pummels sex offenders to be unconstitutional would unleash a maelstrom of media and social criticism of the Court). Whatever the reason, the Court’s punt leaves the broader delegation doctrine question, which is as important as it is dry, for another day.

Gundy v. United States, Case No. 17-6086 (Supreme Court, June 20, 2019)

CLOCKWATCHERS

Another SCOTUS decision yesterday was a sleeper, one I had paid scant attention to. But it is a useful holding nonetheless.

A lot of people who were unlawfully treated before and during their criminal cases, and may have good legal issues against the people responsible, end up getting shut out by the statute of limitations. That happened to Ed McDonough.

Ed was an election commissioner in Troy, New York. After questions arose, Youel Smith was specially appointed to prosecute a case of forged absentee ballots in that election. Ed became his primary target.

clockwatcher190620Ed alleged that Youel fabricated evidence against him and used it to secure a grand jury indictment. Youel tried the case, using the allegedly false evidence, Ed got a mistrial the first time, but an outright acquittal the second.

Ed sued Youel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a claim for fabrication of evidence. The district court dismissed the claim as untimely, and the 2nd Circuit affirmed. The courts both held that the 3-year limitations period began to run when Ed learned that the evidence was false, which undisputedly occurred by the time Ed was arrested and stood trial.

The Supremes reversed, ruling for Ed. The fabrication claim was a lot like a malicious prosecution claim, and such a claim does not arise until the defendant is acquitted. To follow the lower courts’ holding would create practical problems in places where prosecutions regularly last nearly as long as — or even longer than—the limitations period. Criminal defendants, SCOTUS said, “could face the untenable choice of letting their claims expire or filing a civil suit against the very person who is in the midst of prosecuting them. The parallel civil litigation that would result if plaintiffs chose the second option would run counter to core principles of federalism, comity, consistency, and judicial economy.”

McDonough v. Smith, Case No. 18–485 (Supreme Court, June 20, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Upholds Right of States and Feds to Separately Try Defendant for Same Crime – Update for June 18, 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.

“SEPARATE SOVEREIGNS” MAY BOTH TRY DEFENDANT AS FELON-IN-POSSESSION FOR SAME INCIDENT

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to abandon the dual-sovereignty doctrine, which permits a state to try a defendant for an offense, and then allow the federal government to try him or her for the same conduct.

nice190618Police caught Terence Gamble with a loaded handgun. He pled guilty to an Alabama felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute. He was then indicted in federal court for the same incident. Terence moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment was for the same offense as the one at issue in his state conviction, thus exposing him to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied this motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doctrine, according to which two offenses “are not the ‘same offence’ ” for double jeopardy purposes if “prosecuted by different sovereigns,” The 11th Circuit affirmed.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the “dual sovereignty” doctrine in a 7-2 opinion. In a verbal pretzel of a justification, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from being “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence.” But as it was originally understood, the Court said, an “offence” is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and, therefore, two “offences.”

The Court said Terence was trying to show from the Double Jeopardy Clause’s drafting history that Congress must have intended to bar successive prosecutions regardless of what government brought the charge. “But even if conjectures about subjective goals” of the framers of the Constitution “were allowed to inform this Court’s reading of the text, the Government’s contrary arguments on that score would prevail.”

Justice Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) and Justice Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) dissented. Justice Ginsberg called the difference in sovereigns a “metaphysical sublety” on which a defendant’s freedom should not be frittered away. Justice Gorsuch, who for his conservative philosophy seems to be a champion of criminal justice, started his long dissent like this:

A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result. Unfortunately, the Court today endorses a colossal exception to this ancient rule against double jeopardy. My colleagues say that the federal government and each State are “separate sovereigns” entitled to try the same person for the same crime. So if all the might of one “sovereign” cannot succeed against the presumptively free individual, another may insist on the chance to try again. And if both manage to succeed, so much the better; they can add one punishment on top of the other. But this “separate sovereigns exception” to the bar against double jeopardy finds no meaningful support in the text of the Constitution, its original public meaning, structure, or history. Instead, the Constitution promises all Americans that they will never suffer double jeopardy. I would enforce that guarantee.

Gamble v United States, Case No. 17-646 (June 17, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Rules “Remaining-in” Burglary is Generic Burglary – Update for June 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.

SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ‘REMAINING IN” BURGLARY IS GENERIC BURGLARY UNDER ACCA

Jamar Quarles was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Because he had three prior convictions for crimes of violence, he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under 18 USC § 924(e), the Armed Career Criminal Act.

burglar160103In order to be a crime of violence, you may recall, 18 USC 924(e) requires that the conviction either be (1) for burglary, arson, use of explosives or extortion (the “enumerated crimes” clause); or (2) a crime involving an actual or threatened use of physical force against another person (the “elements” clause).

Jamar appealed his ACCA conviction, arguing that one of the prior offenses, Michigan third-degree home invasion, was not generic burglary, because its terms were broader than mere generic burglary. Thus, he maintained, the home invasion did not fit the definition of “crime of violence” under the enumerated crimes clause.

Some 29 years ago, the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States defined generic burglary under §924(e) to mean “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” The Michigan third-degree home invasion statute applied when a person “breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a misdemeanor.”

Jamar argued that this provision was too broad, because it encompassed situations where the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a dwelling. He contended that generic remaining-in burglary under the ACCA occurs only when the defendant has the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment when he or she first unlawfully remains in a building or structure.

The District Court rejected that argument, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts.

remaining190611The Supreme Court said that “remaining in” refers only to the burglary being a continuous event, that begins when one enters the building unlawfully and does not end until he or she exits. The common understanding of “remaining in” as a continuous event, the Court said, “means that burglary occurs for purposes of §924(e) if the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time during the continuous event of unlawfully remaining in a building or structure.” To put it in conventional criminal law terms, the Court explained, “because the actus reus [the act of burglary] is a continuous event, the mens rea [intent to commit a crime while there] matches the actus reus so long as the burglar forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in the building or structure.”

The Court made it clear what concerns partly drove the train. It observed that “the important point is that all of the state appellate courts that had definitively addressed this issue as of 1986 [the year the ACCA was adopted] had interpreted remaining-in burglary to occur when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in the building or structure… To interpret remaining-in burglary narrowly… would thwart the stated goals of the Armed Career Criminal Act. After all, most burglaries involve unlawful entry, not unlawful remaining in. Yet if we were to narrowly interpret the remaining-in category of generic burglary so as to require that the defendant have the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment he or she first unlawfully remains… many States’ burglary statutes would presumably be eliminated as predicate offenses under §924(e). That result not only would defy common sense, but also would defeat Congress’ stated objective of imposing enhanced punishment on armed career criminals who have three prior convictions for burglary or other violent felonies.”

Quarles v United States, Case No. 17-778 (Supreme Court, June 10, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Ask Not For Whom the Supervised Release Term Tolls – Update for June 4, 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.

SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PRETRIAL DETENTION LATER CREDITED TO NEW SENTENCE TOLLS SUPERVISED RELEASE

Jason Mont was on five years’ supervised release after doing time for a federal drug offense, scheduled to end on March 6, 2017. With nine months to go, Ohio arrested him for a marijuana trafficking conspiracy and locked him in the beautiful, high-rise Mahoning County jail.

supervisedrelease180713Four months later, Jason pled guilty to the pot charge in state court, and then admitted in federal court that he had violated his supervised-release conditions by virtue of the new state convictions. The federal district court finally got around to issuing a supervised release violations warrant on March 30, 2017, four months later, right after Ohio sentenced him to six years in prison for the pot, with credit for the 10 months he had spent in Mahoning County jail.

When Jason finally had his supervised release revocation hearing in June 2017, he challenged the district court’s jurisdiction on the ground that his supervised release had expired on March 6. he argued that the expiration of his supervised release deprived the district court of jurisdiction to issue the warrant on March 30. The court rejected the argument, and ordered him to serve 42 months’ federal imprisonment, to run consecutive to his state sentence.

The Sixth Circuit held that Jason’s supervised-release period was tolled under 18 USC § 3624(e), which provides that a “term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a . . . crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.” Because the roughly 10 months of pretrial custody was held to be “in connection with [Jason’s] conviction,” the appellate court said, his supervised release was tolled in June 2016, and had not yet resumed running as of the time the warrant issued. Thus, there was ample time left on the supervised release term when the warrant issued.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court narrowly agreed. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction is “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” and thus tolls the supervised-release term under 18 USC § 3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.

The Court said the text of § 3624(e) compels its conclusion. First, dictionary definition of the term “imprison,” both now and at the time Congress created supervised release, encompasses pretrial detention. Second, the phrase “in connection with a conviction” encompasses a period of pretrial detention for which a defendant receives credit against the sentence ultimately imposed. Congress, like most states, instructs courts calculating a term of imprisonment to credit pretrial detention as time served on a subsequent conviction.

supervisedrevoked181106The statute undeniably requires courts to retrospectively calculate whether a period of pretrial detention should toll a period of supervised release, as evidenced by its inclusion of the 30-day minimum jail stay needed to trigger tolling. The statute does not require courts to make a tolling determination as soon as a defendant is arrested on new charges or to continually reassess the tolling calculation throughout the pretrial-detention period. Inasmuch as the statute does not count jail for less than 30 days as tolling supervised release, it clearly anticipates that the tolling decision need be made only once at the end of the period in question.

The statutory context also supports the Court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court said it “would be an exceedingly odd construction of the statute to give a defendant the windfall of satisfying a new sentence of imprisonment and an old sentence of supervised release with the same period of pretrial detention. Supervised release is a form of punishment prescribed along with a term of imprisonment as part of the same sentence. And Congress denies defendants credit for time served if the detention time has already ‘been credited against another sentence’.”

Mont v. United States, Case No. 17-8995 (Supreme Court, June 3, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Trump Supreme Court Appointee Gorsuch May Not Be All ‘Law and Order’ – Update for June 3, 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.

Last week’s posts were light to the point of being non-existent. I was off watching my oldest graduate from Harvard Business School (after a 13-year stint in Army aviation, most of which was in special operations). Yeah, I’m pretty proud watching my kids accomplish things I never could have done…

But, now, it’s back to work.

JUSTICE GORSUCH HINTS HE MAY NOT BE A “LOCK” VOTE FOR GOVERNMENT

This is the time of year I am usually up to my armpits in Supreme Court decisions. But with only four weeks left (and only four opinion days scheduled), SCOTUS still has 31 cases to decide, including a passel of important criminal decisions. Maybe we’ll see something today…

Meanwhile, the high court’s decision in Nieves v. Bartlett last week (a narrow decision holding that if a cop has probable cause to arrest you, you cannot make a 1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claim) was interesting primarily for a notable voting lineup and multiple separate opinions. Nieves especially provides more evidence that Justice Gorsuch is a sharp critic of the criminal justice system.

policestate190603In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

History shows that governments sometimes seek to regulate our lives finely, acutely, thoroughly, and exhaustively. In our own time and place, criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something. If the state could use these laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our 1st Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past or the malignant fiefdoms of our own age.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said in his Sentencing Law and Policy Blog that “the sparring in Nieves now has me even more excited (if that was possible) to see what the Court does in the biggest criminal cases I am watching, especially Gundy and Haymond.”

Nieves v Bartlett, Case No. 17-1174 (May 28, 2019)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Notable comments in notable SCOTUS opinions addressing First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims (May 28, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court 922(g) Case May Hold Unintended Consequence for Felons with Guns – Update for April 29, 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.

SLEEPER

An oral argument last Tuesday in Rehaif v. United States took a surprising turn, and could make a Supreme Court decision in the case the “sleeper” of the Court’s 2018-2019 term.

gunknot181009Refresher first: Federal law prohibits a long list of people from possessing guns or ammunition. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), bans ownership by people charged with felonies, people convicted of felonies, people who have been certified as crazy, people who beat their spouses, people subject to protection orders, people who do drugs, people who are here illegally, and so on and so on.

The statute (922(g)) is colloquially known as the “felon-in-possession” statute, although its reach is much broader than that. Read the statute to figure out where you fit.

A quirk of the felon-in-possession statute is that it provides no punishment. Rather, punishment is meted out by another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), which specifies a 10-year sentence for people who “knowingly” violate 922(g).

But “knowingly” what? Do you have to know it is a gun? Or a round of ammo? Do you have to know you are a felon or a drug abuser or here illegally? Do you have to know you are possessing it? Up to now, the statute was interpreted by the courts as requiring only that you know that it’s a firearm or ammunition.

Which brings us to the unluckiest hedonist in America, Hamid Rehaif. Hammy came to the US to attend college. Under immigration law, he retained his student-visa status only as long as he remained enrolled as a full-time student. But when he got here, he discovered that the non-classroom parts of college were more fun, the bars, the tailgating, the frat parties, all of the stuff that has conspired to place less of a workload on college students than on eighth graders.

Naturally, Hammy flunked out. But he had so much fun doing it that he couldn’t give it up. Instead of returning to his mother country with his academic tail between his legs, Hammy stayed in America. In Florida, actually, and who could blame him?

florida190429But events conspired against him. One day he went to a shooting range, rented a Glock .40 cal. pistol (is this a great country or what?), and happily blasted away at targets for an hour or so.  A few weeks later, some solid citizen reported Hamid, because she had seen him skulking around an apartment building (he lived there, but then, he is Middle Eastern, so of course he must be a terrorist). The FBI came by to talk to him, and Hammy – who had been at a party instead of an American government class, and thus did not know about the “right to remain silent” part of the Constitution – mentioned at one point in the interview that he had been shooting a few weeks before.

Like I used to tell my clients, remaining silent is not just a  right – it’s a whopping’ good idea. Hamid was charged as an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Of course, he was convicted, despite the fact Hammy argued he did not know he was in the country illegally. The trial court said that did not matter. The only “knowledge” provision of 922(g) that mattered was that he knew he possessed a gun, even just for an hour.

knowledge190429The question of whether “knowingly” meant a defendant had to be aware of his or her status (felon, spouse-beater, drug-abuser, illegal-alien, whatever) in order to violate 922(g). At oral argument last week, the Supreme Court justices quickly saw the slippery slope: if they rule that the government must prove an unauthorized immigrant with a firearm knew he was in the country illegally, that ruling will necessarily mean it will have to prove that a felon with a firearm knows he or she is a felon.

If Hamid’s conviction is reversed, the practical consequences could be huge. Only Justice Alito seemed to accept the current view that a defendant need not know his or her status to violate the statute.

Justice Ginsburg wondered what would happen if the Court ruled that status under 922(g) requires knowledge: “How many people who have been convicted under felon-in-possession charges could now say, well, the Supreme Court has said… I can’t be convicted of [the] crime I was convicted of, so I want to get out. I want habeas.” The government’s lawyer responded that “under Bousley v. United States, the defendant would have to show on collateral review that he was actually innocent, meaning he actually did not know about his status.”

It is tricky to predict a Supreme Court case’s outcome from oral argument, but the headcount strongly suggests Hamid will win. If the Supremes’ decision holds that knowledge of felon (or illegal immigrant) status is an element of a 922(g) offense, a flood of actual-innocence 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions is sure to follow. That would make Rehaif the “sleeper” decision of the year.

Rehaif v. United States, Case No. 17-9560 (Supreme Court, decision by June 30, 2019)

SCOTUSBlog.com, Argument analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon (Apr. 24)

– Thomas L. Root

Unintended Consequences – Does First Step Act Open Up 8th Amendment Argument? – Update for February 18, 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.

DOES FIRST STEP OPEN WINDOW FOR 8TH AMENDMENT CLAIM ON HARSH GUN SENTENCES?

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman asked this interesting question in a post on his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last week.

Prof. Berman noted that First Step Act Sec. 403, “described as a ‘clarification of Section 924(c),’ eliminates the required “stacking” of 25-year mandatory minimums for multiple 924(c) counts at the same time… Sadly, Congress did not make Section 403 of the First Step Act retroactive, and thus defendants previously subject to these extreme stacked sentences will get no direct relief from the new Act.”

Sentencestack170404In 2010, Wendell Rivera–Ruperto was paid by undercover FBI informants to serve as “armed security” at six fake drug deals, and received a 162-year sentence, of which 130 years were for his six stacked 924(c) convictions. In a 1st Circuit decision last year, Wendell was denied rehearing en banc despite one judge’s complaint that courts “have no choice but to approve mandatory ‘forever’ sentences… so long as they can hypothesize a rational reason for the legislature to have thought that the underlying criminal conduct was [so] serious…” The dissenting judge hoped for Supreme Court review.

SCOTUS has incorporated a proportionality analysis into the cruel and unusual punishment analysis required in capital cases. In Harmelin v. Michigan, the defendant asked the Court to extend the reach of that analysis to noncapital cases such as his life sentence for 650 grams of cocaine. Five Justices agreed that Harmelin’s sentence was not unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, but six Justices agreed that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause bore some kind of proportionality analysis. Among those six, three supported a proportionality principle that deferred to legislative judgments, while three others supported a more searching proportionality analysis that would have struck down the mandatory life sentence.

cruel190218This Friday, the Justices will consider whether to review the case. “Notably, and not surprisingly,” Prof. Berman wrote, “the feds now say in opposition to cert that passage of the First Step Act reduces the important of the case: ‘future defendants in petitioner’s position will not be subject to mandatory consecutive sentences of at least 25 years [and the] question presented by his case therefore has diminishing significance’.” But “the fact that the 8th Amendment is supposed to take guidance from an ‘evolving standards of decency’ and be responsive to a ‘national consensus’ against a sentence, I strongly believe the enactment of the First Step Act primarily operates to make Wendell Rivera–Ruperto’s constitutional claim even more substantively potent.”

Justice Kennedy’s retirement last summer creates a window of opportunity for advocates to urge overturning (or cutting back) Harmelin’s 8th Amendment precedent. “Thus,” Berman said, “I am rooting super hard for the Justices to grant cert in Rivera–Ruperto.” Grant of cert in this case, which Berman calls “potentially the biggest non-capital Eighth Amendment case in a generation,” might open other stacking cases to 8th Amendment review.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Doesn’t the FIRST STEP Act add juice to Eighth Amendment challenge to extreme stacked 924(c) sentence in Rivera-Ruperto? (Feb. 10)

Rivera-Ruperto v. United States, Case No. 18-5384 (Supreme Ct.)

– Thomas L. Root

Curtis Johnson Suffers Violence at Hands of Supreme Court – Update for January 15, 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.

SUPREME COURT RULING ON ROBBERY AS ACCA PRIOR IS BAD NEWS FOR PEOPLE ATTACKING ACCA PRIORS

violence180508Back in 2010, the Supreme Court brought some sense to the classification of crimes as “violent” in Curtis Johnson v. United States, holding that “physical force” means “violent force – that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.  Applying that standard to a Florida battery law criminalizing “any intentional physical contact,” the Curtis Johnson Court concluded that the law did not require the use of “physical force” within the meaning of Armed Career Criminal Act.  

Since that time, Curtis Johnson has led to a number of state crimes that can be accomplished with something less than force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person have been found not to require the use of force as contemplated by the ACCA.

Then came Denard Stokeling, who once tried to snatch a necklace from the nape of a female victim. The State of Florida convicted him of robbery for that. Some years later, Denard was caught with a handgun. He pled guilty to being a felon-in-possession under 18 USC 922(g). Based on his priors, including the Florida robbery conviction, he was sentenced to a 15-year mandatory minimum under the ACCA.

Denard appealed, arguing that Florida robbery was not a crime of violence under the ACCA, because it did not require force that could cause physical harm. His district court agreed, but the 11th Circuit reversed.

Today, the Supreme Court sided with the 11th Circuit in an opinion that pretty much sounds a death knell for any arguments that any robbery – state or federal – is not a crime of violence. That includes a number of people who are now arguing that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for 18 USC 924(c) purposes.

At one time, the ACCA included robbery among the enumerated crimes that were automatically crimes of violence. Congress changed the law to delete “robbery,” but expanded the elements clause of the ACCA to cover any offense that has as an element “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”

In a decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held earlier today that by replacing robbery with a clause that has “force” as its touchstone, Congress retained the same common-law definition that undergirded the definition of robbery in the original ACCA. The widely-accepted definition of robbery at the state level required nothing more than “a degree of force sufficient only to overcome a victim’s resistance.”

candybaby190117The Court said that the understanding of “physical force” in robbery comports with the definition of force in Curtis Johnson. There, the force necessary for misdemeanor battery required only the “slightest offensive touching” to qualify. Robbery, the Court said, requires force necessary to overcome resistance by a victim, and that is inherently “violent” in the sense contemplated by Johnson and “suggest[s] a degree of power that would not be satisfied by the merest touching.” The Supreme Court held that Curtis Johnson did not purport to establish a force threshold so high as to exclude even robbery from the ACCA’s scope.

Therefore, the Court said, robbery under Florida law qualifies as an ACCA-predicate offense under the elements clause. The term “physical force” in the ACCA encompasses the degree of force necessary to commit common-law robbery.

Curiously, the decision was 5-4, with the dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan, arguing that the decision eviscerated Curtis Johnson. And they have a point. It is difficult to see what would limit Justice Thomas’ holding that any force sufficient to overcome the will of the victim – such as the yanking a purse away from a woman’s shoulder or even taking candy from the fist of a baby – is not sufficient force to fall within Curtis Johnson.

thThere are those who suspect that today’s decision may limit Curtis Johnson to its facts, which in the law is a nice way to say the court has kneecapped a case.

Not content to vastly expand the reach of the ACCA’s “crime of violence” definition, the decision included the ominous dictum that federal criminal statutes should not be construed in ways that would render them inapplicable in many states. This warning could cause significant problems for people seeking to have state statutory crimes declared to be too broad for ACCA or career offender.

Stokeling v. United States, Case No. 17-5554 (Supreme Court, January 15, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root