We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
CERTIORARI DENIED TO DAN MCCARTHAN, BUT TWO OTHER SENTENCING CASES GRANTED SCOTUS REVIEW
You may recall McCarthan v. Collins, a case dealing with when and under what terms an inmate may use a 28 USC 2241 motion. Nine federal circuits let inmates file 2241s under the 2255 “saving clause,” which provides that a prisoner may use the 2241 form of federal habeas corpus if it “appears that the remedy by [2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
Earlier this year, however, the 11th Circuit held that an initial Section 2255 motion is an adequate and effective remedy to “test” a sentence, even when circuit precedent forecloses the movant’s claim at the time of the motion. After all, the Circuit said, a movant could have asked the court of appeals to overrule its precedent, sought Supreme Court review, or both. The saving clause in Section 2255(e), the 11th said, is concerned only with ensuring that a person in custody has a “theoretical opportunity” to pursue a claim, even if, at the time of the initial 2255 motion, the claim was virtually certain to fail in the face of adverse precedent. In other words, you have to raise arguments even when the court has already said the arguments are futile.
Both the 11th and 10th adhere to this draconian view. Dan McCarthan challenged the 11th Circuit interpretation. A few weeks ago, we reported that the Trump Justice Department asked the Supreme Court not to take the case, even though it acknowledged that the legal question is significant and that its new position could condemn inmates to serve out unlawful sentences. A week ago, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Dan.
Freeman has been a mess. Hughes gives the Court a chance for a do-over that may let more people with Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences reductions.
It frequently happens that defendants cooperate with the government, and are rewarded with a reduction in sentence under Sec. 5K1.1of the Sentencing Guidelines. In Koons v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether a defendant who has a mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by statute, but who gets a 5K1.1 sentence reduction beneath that minimum, can later get a sentence reduction under retroactive Guidelines changes, even where the new sentence is below the mandatory minimum that was voided by the 5K1.1 motion.
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 BEATS FEET FOR SUMMER, LEAVES DIMAYA STRANDED
The Supreme Court ended its October 2016 term yesterday by issuing several higher-profile decisions, including one on not denying state programs to churches, and granting certiorari on the Trump Administration’s travel ban.
But we are nothing if not one-issue commentators here, so we left the final session of the term unsatisfied, as the Court left two immigration cases – including the long-awaited Sessions v. Dimaya – undecided.
The Court is adjourned until October 2, 2017, when its next 9-month session begins.
When a noncitizen is convicted of a crime, he can be deported if his crime was an “aggravated felony.” Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an “aggravated felony” is defined to include a “crime of violence,” which is in turn defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16 as any felony that, “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”
In 2015, the court ruled in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Acthad a definition of “violent felony” – which was similar, although not identical, to the definition of a “crime of violence” – that was so ambiguous that it violates the Constitution’s bar on vague criminal laws. The question is whether the same is true for the INA’s definition of a “crime of violence,” and by extension, the 18 U.S.C. § 16 definition of a crime of violence.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court punted, setting the case for reargument next fall. This suggests that the Court was splintered as to how to decide it, probably split 4-4 (the case was argued before Justice Gorsuch joined the court). That means Justice Gorsuch will be the swing vote.
No Justice announced retirement yesterday, although rumors flew that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who just turned 80, might do so. Justice Kennedy’s wife, Mary, was not present in the courtroom (as she often is), leading SCOTUS observers to discount the likelihood of a Kennedy retirement this year.
The failure of any Justice to make a retirement announcement is not terribly significant. Justices announce retirement at any time, not specifically on the last day of the term. If one would retire before October, a reargument could still leave the court deadlocked.
The Court also issued two orders of interest:
Sessions v. Binderup, Case No. 16-847: The question was whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms and ammunition, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment based on the petitioners’ claim that their criminal offenses and other particular circumstances do not warrant a firearms disqualification.
The Court relisted the petition six times – an unusual number of times to reconsider a petition for writ of certiorari – but yesterday it denied the petition for certiorari.
The multiple relistings suggest that the court may be close to accepting a case on this topic.
Hicks v. United States, Case No. 16-7806: When Marcus Hicks was sentenced, he was eligible for the lower sentence for crack cocaine offenses under the Fair Sentencing Act, because while he committed the crime before the FSA passed, he was being sentenced after it passed. But no one noticed, and before the 5th Circuit, nobody argued it. Marcus got the higher sentence. He asked the Supreme Court for certiorari to correct it.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court GVR’d the case (which is SCOTUS shorthand for granted certiorari, vacated and remanded all at once) summarily reversing the 5th Circuit, and sending the case back. Everyone agreed Marcus met the first two elements of plain error: The court could see a mistake had been made, error was obvious. But two other elements had to be met also: Marcus’s substantial rights to a lower sentence had to have been harmed, and the error had to implicate the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court sent the decision back to the 5th Circuit to determine the last two factors.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, only two months on the Court, filed a concurring opinion on Marcus’s remand which hints that he may approach federal criminal law matters with an open mind and a sense of fairness. The Justice wrote:
Everyone agrees that Mr. Hicks was wrongly sentenced to a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence under a now-defunct statute. True, Mr. Hicks didn’t argue the point in the court of appeals. But before us the government admits his sentence is plainly wrong as a matter of law, and it’s simple enough to see the government is right…
A plain legal error infects this judgment—a man was wrongly sentenced to 20 years in prison under a defunct statute. No doubt, too, there’s a reasonable probability that cleansing this error will yield a different outcome. Of course, Mr. Hicks’s conviction won’t be undone, but the sentencing component of the district court’s judgment is likely to change, and change substantially. For experience surely teaches that a defendant entitled to a sentence consistent with 18 U. S. C. §3553(a)’s parsimony provision, rather than pursuant to the rigors of a statutory mandatory minimum, will often receive a much lower sentence.
When it comes to the fourth prong of plain error review, it’s clear Mr. Hicks also enjoys a reasonable probability of success. For who wouldn’t hold a rightly diminished view of our courts if we allowed individuals to linger longer in prison than the law requires only because we were unwilling to correct our own obvious mistakes?”
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
HILL V. LOCKHART ‘OBJECTIVE” TEST DEFANGED
If a post-conviction petitioner argues in a 28 USC 2255 motion that he or she would never have taken a plea deal if defense counsel had done a competent job of explaining it, the courts have held that the prisoner must show (1) the advice was deficient (either bad or missing altogether); and (2) but for the bad representation, he or she would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. This is the Hill v. Lockhart test, from a 1985 Supreme Court decision.
A prisoner might have a lot of reasons for going to trial that have nothing to do with whether he or she can win. But over the years, the government has convinced courts that if the petitioner had no reasonable chance of winning at trial, he or she cannot prove that but for the lousy advice, he or she would have rolled the dice with a jury.
Korean-American restaurant owner Jae Lee was in that boat. Jae had moved to the United States from South Korea with his parents when he was 13. In the 35 years he spent in this country, Jae has never returned to South Korea, but neither had he become a U. S. citizen, living instead as a lawful permanent resident.
In 2008, federal law enforcement found drugs, cash, and a loaded rifle in Jae Lee’s house. Jae admitted that the drugs were his, and a grand jury indicted him. His attorney talked pleas with the Government. During the plea process, Jae repeatedly asked his attorney whether he would face deportation; his attorney assured him that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty. Based on that assurance, Lee accepted a plea and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.
The attorney was dead wrong. Jae was subject to mandatory deportation as a result of the plea. When Jae learned of this consequence, he filed a 2255 motion, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. At an evidentiary hearing, both Jae and his lawyer testified that “deportation was the determinative issue” to Jae in deciding whether to accept a plea. The attorney acknowledged that although Jae’s defense to the drug charge was really weak, if he had known Jae would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial anyway.
The district court denied the 2255, holding that while Jae Lee’s counsel had performed deficiently, Jae could not show that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s erroneous advice. The 6th Circuit agreed.
Today, the Supreme Court reversed, 6-2, in a substantial victory for Jae. The Supremes noted that the basic rule since Hill v. Lockhart has been that when a defendant claims his counsel’s deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”
The problem with Government’s per se rule that a defendant without a viable defense cannot show prejudice from the denial of his right to trial, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is that “categorical rules are ill suited to an inquiry that demands a case-by-case examination of the totality of the evidence.” What’s more, the Government overlooks that the Hill v. Lockhart inquiry focuses on a defendant’s decisionmaking, which may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial.
The Court said the decision whether to plead guilty involves assessing the respective consequences of a conviction after trial and by plea. When those consequences are, from the defendant’s perspective, similarly dire, even the smallest chance of success at trial may look attractive. For Jae, deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time; he says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation in favor of throwing a “Hail Mary” at trial.
The Government argued that “a defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decisionmaker,” quoting Strickland v. Washington. The Court said that the “lawless” quote was made in the context of discussing the presumption of reliability applied to judicial proceedings, which has no place where, as here, a defendant was deprived of a proceeding altogether. When the inquiry is focused on what an individual defendant would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be pertinent.
The Supreme Court said that district courts should not upset a plea solely because of after-the-fact assertions by a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies. Rather, they should look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant’s expressed preferences. Here, Jae has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation.
The Government argued that Lee cannot “convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances, since deportation would almost certainly result from a trial. But the Chief Justice was not willing to let courts decide that “that it would be irrational for some-one in Lee’s position to risk additional prison time in exchange for holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation.”
We think this decision will have a significant effect on 2255 petitioners seeking to set aside an incompetently-advised plea.
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 DECIDES THREE AGAIN
The Supreme Court issued three opinions yesterday, all on criminal matters.
Brady Material Not Material
Turner v. United States, Case No. 15-1503: The case concerns the murder of Catherine Fuller, a District of Columbia mother, nearly a quarter-century ago. The petitioners in the case were a group of Washington, D.C., men who were convicted of the crime, based primarily on testimony from alleged eyewitnesses. Years later, a reporter learned that the men’s lawyers had not received a statement suggesting that someone else had committed the crime; additional discovery then revealed that prosecutors had not turned over other evidence that could have aided the defendants. The men sought to vacate their convictions, but were unsuccessful in the lower courts. However, last fall the justices agreed to review the case, focusing on whether the men’s convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, which requires the government to turn over information that could exonerate the defendant.
The Supreme Court affirmed, 6-2, holding that the government did not violate Brady. Justice Breyer wrote that the question before the court was whether the withheld evidence was material under Brady. In the case, a group attack was the very cornerstone of the Government’s case, and virtually every witness to the crime agreed that Fuller was killed by a large group of perpetrators.
Pat Brady – Roy Rogers’ comical sidekick back in the 1950s – had nothing to do with Brady v. Maryland, which is deadly serious for many defendants.
The Court held that it was not reasonably probable that the withheld evidence could have led to a different result at trial. Petitioners’ problem, Justice Breyer wrote, is that their current alternative theory would have had to persuade the jury that two defendants had falsely confessed to being active participants in a group attack that never occurred; that another person falsely implicated himself in that group attack and yet gave a highly similar account of how it occurred; that an otherwise disinterested witness wholly fabricated his story; that two other witnesses likewise testified to witnessing a group attack that did not occur; and that Montgomery in fact did not see petitioners and others, as a group, identify Fuller as a target and leave together to rob her.
The case is very fact-bound, meaning that it may not have a lot of relevance to other Brady cases.
Divna Maslenjak was an ethnic Serb who came to the United States as a refugee from what is now Bosnia, fleeing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. She became a U.S. citizen but was later stripped of her U.S. citizenship and deported (along with her husband) to Serbia after the U.S. officials discovered that she had made false statements during the naturalization process. Divna told immigration officials (among other things) that her family feared persecution from Muslims, and that they might be abused because her husband had evaded service in the army.
That turned out to be false, Her husband actually had served in the army, and was part of a unit that participated in an infamous massacre of Muslims.
Divna admitted she lied to U.S. immigration officials, but she argued that she should still be able to remain a U.S. citizen because the false statements were not material – that is, they would not have been important to the officials deciding whether to grant her citizenship application.
Well, we’re calling you a liar, Ms. Maslenjak… But was your lie material?
In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court vacated and remanded, by 9-0, with three concurrences. The Justices held that the government must establish an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. When the illegal act is a false statement, that means the government must demonstrate that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts that would justify denial.
The Court did not decide whether the lie Divna told was disqualifying. In all likelihood, it is. But that is for the district court to decide on remand.
Weaver v. Massachusetts, Case No. 16-240:
This case explored whether a criminal defendant who contends that his lawyer provided constitutionally inadequate representation that resulted in a “structural” error – that is, a fundamental error that affects the entire structure of a trial – must also show that he was harmed by that inadequate representation.
Kentel Weaver was arrested in 2003 at the age of 16 for the murder of a 15-year-old in Boston. He eventually confessed. However, Weaver’s case went to trial anyway, with a jury pool of approximately 90 potential jurors.
When Weaver’s mother and other supporters arrived for the trial, they were told – on two separate days – that the courtroom was “closed for jury selection.” Weaver’s lawyer was aware that Weaver’s supporters had not been admitted to the courtroom, but he did not object. Several years later, Weaver sought a new trial, citing (among other things) his lawyer’s failure to object when the courtroom was closed during jury selection. The judge ruled that the courtroom had indeed been closed, in violation of Weaver’s Sixth Amendment right to a “public trial.” But he also ruled that Weaver would have to show that he was prejudiced by the courtroom closure, which he had failed to do.
In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that although the right to a public trial is important, “in some cases an unlawful closure might take place and yet the trial still will be fundamentally fair from the defendant’s standpoint.” Here, Weaver had not shown a “reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel’s failure to object, and he had not shown that counsel’s shortcomings led to a fundamentally unfair trial. He is not entitled to a new trial.”
The Court said the proper remedy for addressing violation of the right to a public trial depends on when the objection was raised. If an objection is made at trial and the issue is raised on direct appeal, the defendant generally is entitled to “automatic reversal” regardless of the error’s actual “effect on the outcome.” If, however, the defendant does not preserve a structural error on direct review but raises it later in the context of an ineffective-assistance claim, the defendant generally bears the burden to show deficient performance and that the attorney’s error “prejudiced the defense.” To demonstrate prejudice in most cases, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that . . . the result of the proceeding would have been different” but for attorney error.
In other words, if the defendant’s trial counsel is incompetent, and if his appellate counsel is incompetent, he is prejudiced by having to show prejudice at the post-conviction stage? Whew. We suspect we have not heard the last of this theory.
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 DECIDES TWO FORFEITURE ISSUES, GRANTS CERT ON CELLPHONE DATA QUESTION
Terry Honeycutt was just a clerk, not an owner – but the Court of Appeals tried to stick him for the illegal profits.
The Supreme Court was busy yesterday – as it will be all this month – deciding two cases that relate directly or indirectly to the monetary side of sentencing and granting certiorari in a Detroit robbery case on a cutting-edge cellphone data issue.
In Honeycutt v. United States, a 6th Circuit case, the Court held that forfeiture under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 21 USC § 853(a)(1), which requires forfeiture of any property “constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of” some drug crimes, is limited to property that the defendant himself actually obtained as the result of the crime.
This means that the statute cannot require forfeiture by Terry Honeycutt, the petitioner in the case, who was a clerk at his brother’s grain and feed store. Terry and his brother sold large quantities of an iodine-based water purification product that they knew could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Terry had no ownership interest in his brother’s store and did not personally benefit from the illegal sales. Despite this, the government asked the district court to hold Terry jointly and severally liable for the profits from the illegal sales and sought a judgment of $69,751.98, the profits from the conspiracy. The district court refused, holding that Terry was a salaried employee who had not received any profits from the sales.
The 6th Circuit reversed, holding that the brothers, as co-conspirators, were jointly and severally liable for any conspiracy proceeds.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court said that because forfeiture under 21 USC § 853(a)(1) is limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the crime, a court cannot order forfeiture from Terry Honeycutt, who had no ownership interest in his brother’s store and made nothing from the sales.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has authority to investigate violations of federal securities laws and to bring enforcement actions in district court if its defendant “disgorge” illegal profits and pay civil fines.
In 2009, the SEC brought an enforcement action against Charles Kokesh, arguing he has violated securities laws by concealing $34.9 million he had unlawfully pocketed from four business- development companies from 1995 to 2009. The Commission asked for civil penalties and disgorgement.
A jury found for the SEC, but the district court held that a 5-year limitations period in 28 USC § 2462 applied to the monetary civil penalties but not the disgorgement. The 10th Circuit agreed, holding that disgorgement was neither a penalty nor a forfeiture.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed the 10th Circuit, concluding that SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty under the terms of 28 USC § 2462. Therefore, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim arose. Because a lot of what Kokesh did was older than 5 years when the suit was brought, those sums will have to be carved out of the district court award.
The decision could have favorable implications for some forfeiture and restitution issues in federal criminal cases.
Finally, the Court granted certiorari and agreed to review a 6th Circuit decision in which Timothy Carpenter was convicted of multiple counts of aiding and abetting the use of a gun in a series of cellphone store robberies. Tim was the lookout man/getaway driver, and did not carry a gun himself.
Tim was convicted on six counts of robbery after police combed through a month’s worth of location points collected by cell towers and placed him near storefronts where armed robberies occurred. Relying on the Stored Communications Act, which allows phone companies to disclose records when the government provides “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that records at issue “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation,” the government got an order to obtain phone records for 16 phone numbers, including Tim’s cellphone. The several months’ worth of historical cell-site records received showed which cell towers were linked to which cellphone while it was in use. The records allowed the government to determine that, over a five-month span in 2010 and 2011, Tim’s cellphone connected with cell towers in the vicinity of the robberies.
Tim argued in district court and at the 6th Circuit that the records should be suppressed because the government had not obtained a warrant for them. The 6th rejected Tim’s argument that disclosure of his phone records was a search for which the government needed a warrant, holding cellphone companies collect the location data “in the ordinary course of business” for their own purposes. What’s more, the Circuit said, Tim had no reason to think his cellphone records would be kept private, the court explained, because the records only show his cellphone connecting to specific cell towers, without providing any information about the content of his calls.
The U.S. Supreme Court picked the Carpenter case from a thundering herd of similar cert petitions to rule on the question of whether law enforcement is required to obtain a probable-cause court warrant to access such cellular location data.
“Because cell phone location records can reveal countless private details of our lives, police should only be able to access them by getting a warrant based on probable cause,” Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project said in a statement. “The time has come for the Supreme Court to make clear that the longstanding protections of the 4th Amendment apply with undiminished force to these kinds of sensitive digital records.”
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
SUPREMES SAY COURT CAN CONSIDER MANDATORY GUN SENTENCE WHEN SENTENCING ON UNDERLYING CRIME
Outside of TV cop shows, no one likes drug dealers or violent criminals waving firearms around, which is probably why no crime this side of kiddie porn is easier to demagogue than laws that slam gun-toting criminals.
Take 18 USC 924(c), which sets penalties for criminals who use, carry or possess a gun “during and in relation to” a crime of violence or drug-trafficking offense. A defendant convicted of a 924(c) offense must get a mandatory sentence of at least 5 years (with increased penalties if the perp “brandished” it or fired it, and whopping increases if, for example, it was fully automatic). What’s even more impressive, the statute raises the mandatory minimum to 25 years for the second offense. Oh yeah, and all 924(c) penalties must be consecutive to any other sentence.
Watch how the math works: On Monday, Bart Badguy robs a convenience store with a .44 Klutzman stuck in his waistband, and makes off with a bag of Doritos. Realizing later that he has nothing to dip it in, he robs another convenience store the next day, the same revolver displayed under his belt, and grabs some French onion dip. The federal sentencing guidelines set him at 63-78 months for the two robberies, and the court sentences Bart at the bottom (understanding what hunger can do to a man).
But Paula Prosecutor is a canny lawyer, and she thus had the foresight to get Bart indicted for two 924(c) counts along with the two robberies. The first 924(c) count adds 60 months to the 63 months the district court imposed for the robberies. The second 924(c) count – arising from Bart’s going back for the dip – adds 300 months to the robberies and the first 924(c) conviction. Total sentence: 403 months (35¼ years) for chips and dip.
No one would argue against punishing crimes of violence involving guns more harshly than other offenses. Shooting legend Elmer Keith is credited with observing that one should never bring a knife to a gunfight, and the sentiment – that people carrying guns are likely to use them – undergirds 924(c).
But the statute is inflexible, and the government has had its fun with it as a result. While Congress probably meant that a second 924(c) conviction – carrying a 25-year mandatory minimum – had to follow a prior 924(c) conviction, prosecutors years ago sold the Supreme Court that the statute did not say there had to be an intervening conviction. In Deal v. United States, a 1994 decision, the Supreme Court held that a drug-addled bank robber who held up six banks in a 3-month period – carrying a gun for all of them – had to get a 105-year sentence.
Yesterday, the government – which had lived by the sword – died by the sword.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 8th Circuit, holding that a sentencing court may consider the length of a mandatory consecutive sentence when setting the length of an underlying sentence.
In Dean v. United States, the defendant was charged with committing two robberies with a gun. The robberies carried a guidelines sentence of 84 to 105 months. One of the two 924(c) counts carried a mandatory 5 years, and the second carried a mandatory 25 years. Both sentences had to be consecutive to the underlying sentence and each other.
So Levon Dean got to sentencing knowing that he had a minimum 360 months coming. His lawyer argued that it was more than enough, and the judge hardly needed to pile on another 84 months for the underlying offense. While the district court, the judge said he was not allowed to adjust the sentence of the underlying robbery to zero to account for the two consecutive gun sentences. Levon got 400 months.
The 8th Circuit agreed with the government that the underlying offense had to be sentenced as though the 924(c) counts were not there, and then the consecutive sentences had to be stacked on like pancakes. Anything else, the Justice Department argued, would thwart the will of Congress.
How convenient for the government that the will of Congress becomes a crucial consideration in Dean, while it was utterly irrelevant 24 years ago in Deal! Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court found it not so convenient, holding that while adjusting the underlying offense guidelines to zero might negate the will of Congress, that did not matter. The plain text of the statute was clear, and the plain text governs:
The Government speaks of Congress’s intent to prevent district courts from bottoming out sentences for predicate 924(c) offenses whenever they think a mandatory minimum under 924(c) is already punishment enough. But no such intent finds expression in the language of 924(c). That language simply requires any mandatory minimum under 924(c) to be imposed “in addition to” the sentence for the predicate offense, and to run consecutively to that sentence. Nothing in those requirements prevents a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum under 924(c) when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.
The government argued that Congress’s intent that the underlying offense be sentenced without regard to the 924(c) count could be inferred from the statute’s silence. But in another consecutive-sentencing statute for identity theft, Congress included specific language limiting the district court’s ability to adjust the underlying sentence.
The Supremes ruled that because “Congress has shown that it knows how to direct sentencing practices in express terms,” but did not in 924(c), a sentencing court may impose a sentence on the underlying offense of one day, in order to make the overall sentence consistent with what the court considers appropriate under 18 USC 3553 (the sentencing statute). The Court said, “we ordinarily resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not appear on its face.”
Dean will go back to court for resentencing, where he will receive 30 years and a day.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
SUPREMES BRING 7TH CIRCUIT INTO LINE WITH EVERYONE ELSE; LEGAL COMMUNITY YAWNS
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a man who spent 48 days in jail on charges fabricated by the police could sue under the 4th Amendment for an unreasonable seizure, that being the seven weeks he spent in stir.
Dangerous controlled substance?
Elijah Manuel was riding in a car pulled over for a turn-signal violation. He complained that the Joliet, Illinois, police beat him and called his racial epithets. The police found a vitamin bottle containing pills (amazing thing, that). When field tested, the pills were found to be negative for illegal drugs, but that didn’t stop the officers from claiming the pills were Ecstasy and arresting Elijah anyway.
The pills tested negative again at the station, but the police report falsely said otherwise. A magistrate found probable cause, and kept Elijah locked up. A short while later, a grand jury – relying on the false police reports and testimony – indicted him.
Eventually, the state crime lab report came back reporting the pills were vitamins. Even then, it took a few weeks for the district attorney to dismiss charges and set Elijah free.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a claim for malicious prosecution could be brought under the 4th Amendment even after “legal process” – that being the magistrate’s finding of probable cause – issued. The 7th Circuit said it could not be: once legal process issued, such a complaint had to be brought under the 5th Amendment.
In the event readers wonder why we don’t always report on Supreme Court cases like this one, the reason is this: Ten out of 12 federal circuits already held that Elijah’s 4th Amendment claim worked even after legal process issued, and in fact, even after a grand jury indictment, because legal process, like the initial seizure at the time of arrest, is unreasonable if it is based on fabricated evidence. The 8th Circuit had never ruled on the issue, and the 7th Circuit – ruling in Elijah’s case – got it wrong. As far as significance, this case is a yawner.
The decision includes dissents by Alito and Thomas, as well as a number of subsidiary issues orbiting the majority opinion like a legal planetary system. The case only got to where it is today because Elijah waited to the very last minute to file the case, and in fact missed the deadline to sue for false arrest, but not to sue for continued detention. The Justices debate the proper starting point for calculating the statute of limitations, a debate that has a kind of number-of-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin quality to it.
At most, Manuel v. Joliet provides a clear basis for an additional constitutional claim – the 4th Amendment – when someone is locked up on bogus charges. It does not, however, really plow much new ground.
Manuel v. Joliet, Case No. 14-9496 (Supreme Court, Mar. 21, 2017)
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
ROACH MOTEL
Besides the obvious fact that society abhors sex crimes against children – including the possession of kiddie porn – one of the rationales for handing out Draconian sentences to defendants convicted of such offenses is that they pose such a danger to the public if they’re roaming free.
Everyone knows that’s true. After all, the Supreme Court itself has recognized that an “frightening and high” percentage of untreated child porn offenders “re-offend” – which is sociologist-speak for “commits the same crime again” – after release. The statistic everyone loves to cite is 80%.
Except it now appears that the statistic is wrong. But like roaches at the Roach Motel, the “alternate fact” has checked into federal jurisprudence, and it shows no sign of checking out.
A New York Times article published last Monday took the State of North Carolina to task for an argument its attorney made during the Supreme Court oral argument the week before in Packingham v. North Carolina. “This court has recognized that [sex offenders] have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again,” attorney Robert C. Montgomery told the court during his defense of a state law that bars sex offenders from using social media services.
Attorney Montgomery was literally correct. The Supreme Court observed in a 2003 decision, Smith v. Doe, that the risk that sex offenders will commit new crimes is “frightening and high.” The Times said the holding, in a decision affirming Alaska’s sex offender registration law, has been “exceptionally influential. It has appeared in more than 100 lower-court opinions, and it has helped justify laws that effectively banish registered sex offenders from many aspects of everyday life.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 2003 case, Smith v. Doe, cited McKune v. Lile, a decision from the year before, which noted that “[t]he rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80 percent.” That decision cited a 1988 Justice Department study entitled A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender, which was a collection of studies by experts in the field. Ironically, most of the recidivism rates cited in the Guide showed slight recidivism rates for sex offenders. One source, however, claimed an 80% re-offense rate, a number that the Guide itself cautioned might be an outlier.
That source was a 1988 article published in the popular trade magazine Psychology Today. The Psychology Today piece simply asserted that “most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses – indeed, as many as 80% do.” This statistic was not supported by any empirical evidence. In a recent Boston College Law Review article, Dr. Melissa Hamilton (who is both a criminologist and a lawyer) writes, “The Psychology Today authors were therapists in a sex offender treatment program with no apparent academic research credentials or statistical training. Evidently, the authors’ “statistic” was simply based on personal observations from their local treatment program.”
In sum, a principal foundation on which the Supreme Court approved the existence of specialized sex offender policies rested upon virtually no scientific grounds showing that sex offenders are actually at high risk of reoffending. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s scientifically dubious guidance on the actual risk of recidivism that sex offenders pose has been unquestionably repeated by almost all other lower courts that have upheld the public safety need for targeted sex offender restrictions.
That may soon change. Pending before the Supreme Court is a petition for writ of certiorari in Doe v. Snyder, the 6th Circuit’s maverick decision to reject the “frightening and high” recidivism canard, in holding that Michigan’s civil sex offender law is unconstitutional. Hamilton argues that “Snyder’s engagement with scientific evidence has the potential to change the jurisprudence surrounding sex offender laws.”
With the Doe v. Snyder certiorari issue to be decided in the next few weeks, the argument against the 80% figure gain traction yesterday with a U.S. Sentencing Commission release of The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History & Recidivism of Federal Offenders. The study, which is third in a USSC series on the topic, reported that persons convicted of child pornography had a recidivism rate of 37.6%, lower than any other category of offense except economic crimes (which, at 35.9%, was almost indistinguishable). Violent crime offenders, by contrast, reoffended at a 64.1% rate, and drug traffickers at a 50.0% rate.
Benjamin Disraeli (or Mark Twain, no one’s really sure) famously said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” He has a “frightening and high” 80% chance of being right.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
We confess to a lack of creativity. This is the second time in less than a month that we’ve pinned our theme to lyrics from Vicki Lawrence’s 1973 hit, The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia. What compounds our intellectual felons is that the judge in today’s report had hands stained green, not red.
The big Supreme Court news Monday was the unsurprising (to us, at least) Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado decision, in which the Court held that the sanctity of the jury room could be invaded where a juror showed racial bias. The decision of importance to our readers, Beckles v. United States, ran a distant second in the news. And the case we’re looking at today, a summary disposition in Rippo v. Baker, was almost completely ignored.
Mike Rippo is a Nevada death-row inmate who alleged that the judge in his state trial was biased. Mike was tried for two murders in 1992. Shortly after his trial started, newspaper stories revealed the judge, Gerard Bongiovanni, was under investigation by a federal grand jury for allegedly taking bribes. Mike moved for the judge’s recusal as a matter of due process, contending that a judge could not impartially adjudicate a case in which one of the parties was criminally investigating him. Mike argued the judge had a motive to favor the prosecution in his case, in order to curry favor.
The DA falsely denied that his office was part of the bribery probe, and the judge himself said he did not know about any state law enforcement involvement in the fed’s investigation. The trial went on, and Mike was convicted. But after the trial ended, the judge was indicted by a federal grand jury for bribery unrelated to Mike’s case.
In a later state post-conviction proceeding, Mike advanced his bias claim again, this time pointing to documents from the judge’s criminal trial indicating that the district attorney’s office had participated in the bribery investigation. The state court denied the motion, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It reasoned that Mike was not entitled to discovery or an evidentiary hearing because his allegations “did not support the assertion that the trial judge was actually biased in this case.”
The U.S. Supreme Court dithered over Mike’s petition for certiorari, re-listing it for conference five times. Finally, last Monday the Court summarily reversed the Nevada courts and sent the case back.
The Nevada courts’ error, last Monday’s short opinion said, was in applying the wrong legal standard. The due process clause “may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge has no actual bias,” the Court ruled. “Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”
The Rippo decision may save some people from writing pleadings on the sides of their cars…
The test is not “whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias, but instead whether, as an objective matter, the average judge in his position is likely to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional potential for bias.” To make out a bias complaint, a litigant need not “show as a matter of course that a judge was actually biased in the litigant’s case.” Such a standard would be nearly impossible to meet. Instead, it is enough if “the circumstances alleged” are such that “the risk of bias” is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
And how high is too high? We’ll have to wait for further opinions to resolve that.
Rippo v. Baker, Case No. 16-6316 (March 6, 2017) per curiam
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 FURTHER MUDDLES GUIDELINES
In a decision long awaited by federal inmates, the Supreme Court yesterday held that unlike criminal statutes, the federal sentencing guidelines can never be void for vagueness. But in so ruling, the Court may have weakened the guidelines rather than strengthened them.
The history: In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. United States that a part of the definition of “crime of violence” found in the Armed Career Criminal Act – the “residual clause” that swept up offenses with a significant chance that someone might get hurt as being violent – was unconstitutionally vague. That ruling made sense: crimes such as drunk driving and not stopping for the police were being called “violent,” and on the strength of such dubious definitions, the law was making 51-month sentences into 15-year bits.
Unfortunately, the definition of “crime of violence” (along with the “residual clause”) was not just an ACCA provision. Instead, the same definition had metastasized throughout the criminal code and guidelines. Under the legal principle that quid est ius gander anserem condimentum (“what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”), inmates whose sentences had been shot into low-earth orbit by the guidelines’ “career offender” provision immediately began arguing that their sentences were based on an unconstitutionally vague “residual clause” as well.
The United States Sentencing Commission lent some support to the argument. After Johnson, the Commission changed the guidelines’ “crime of violence” definition to comport with Johnson. But a few courts of appeal held that guidelines are different from statutes, and could never be void for vagueness.
Yesterday’s Decision: Beckles v. United States was such a case. Travis Beckles had been sentenced to double prison time for possessing a sawed-off shotgun under the “career offender” guideline. If the ACCA “crime of violence” definition was unintelligible, Travis argued, so was the guidelines definition that matched it word for word.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court disagreed. Because guidelines are merely advisory and judges hold the final authority on sentences, the Court held, defendants cannot successfully argue that a sentencing guideline is so vaguely worded as to violate the constitutional right to due process. Laws that “fix” the sentencing range can be challenged in ways that “advisory guidelines” simply cannot.
The Fallout:Beckles hobbles what has up to now been a well-honed defense tool, while exposing contradictions between the guidelines in theory and in practice in a way that almost guarantees further litigation.
Not if it’s in the guidelines…
One former federal prosecutor notes, “Saying those guidelines can’t be challenged for vagueness takes away a tool for review and puts the onus on the Sentencing Commission to keep going back and looking at how they are being applied.”
Up to 2005, judges had been required by law to apply the Guidelines in sentencing. But in United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court decided mandatory guidelines the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984created were unconstitutional. Instead of throwing the whole law out, the court decided the guidelines should be considered advisory.
The broad opinion Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Beckles built on Booker, differentiates between sentencing provisions in laws like the ACCA and the guidelines, which are subject to district courts’ discretion.
A former associate deputy attorney general who is now a law professor said the Beckles decision is a symptom of the hybrid situation that flowed from Booker: “You live in this weird world where the guidelines are both advisory and highly influential.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in Beckles with a scathing rejection of the majority’s reasoning. She argued that while the guidelines may be “advisory” in name, in practice judges often consider them a default, meaning they should get the same treatment as a law under the constitution. Ironically, this is the same argument that helped carry the day in a 2011 decision, Peugh v. United States, which held the guidelines could be subject to an ex post facto analysis.
Sotomayor argued that Booker tweaked the guidelines’s status but left them at the heart of the sentencing consideration — or as the court put it last year in Molina-Martinez v. United States, the “basis” for the sentence. “It follows from the central role that the guidelines play at sentencing,” Sotomayor wrote, “that they should be susceptible to vagueness challenges under the due process clause,” she wrote.
Another law professor who filed an amicus brief in Beckles argued yesterday that the majority’s ruling ignores the “messy reality” of federal sentencing. “It reads as though the federal sentencing guidelines are just advice for district court judges that they can take or leave as they want, but that’s just not true,” she said.
An optimistic footnote to Beckles: Justice Kennedy’s short concurring opinion may hint at another option for defendants. He wrote that while the legal tests for constitutional vagueness are ill fitted to the sentencing guidelines, a defendant might still run into a sentence that is “so arbitrary that it implicates constitutional concerns.” Kennedy said, “In that instance, a litigant might use the word vague in a general sense — that is to say, imprecise or unclear — in trying to establish that the sentencing decision was flawed.”
Most notably, Beckles underscores to district court judges that the guidelines are not just purely advisory, but occupy a place in the law that is considerably less that statute, and perhaps much less than regulation as well. “It sends a signal to district court judges and reinforces the message that is already out there that these guidelines are purely advisory,” one lawyer said.
That may embolden courts to deviate from guidelines to an even greater extent than they have before. Courts have repeatedly held that a within-guidelines sentence is “presumptively reasonable.” If those guidelines can be so vague as to defy fairness – too vague to survive a constitutional analysis were they statutes – how long can such a reasonableness presumption endure?
Earlier this year, however, the 11th Circuit held that an initial Section 2255 motion is an adequate and effective remedy to “test” a sentence, even when circuit precedent forecloses the movant’s claim at the time of the motion. After all, the Circuit said, a movant could have asked the court of appeals to overrule its precedent, sought Supreme Court review, or both. The saving clause in Section 2255(e), the 11th said, is concerned only with ensuring that a person in custody has a “theoretical opportunity” to pursue a claim, even if, at the time of the initial 2255 motion, the claim was virtually certain to fail in the face of adverse precedent. In other words, you have to raise arguments even when the court has already said the arguments are futile.
Freeman has been a mess. Hughes gives the Court a chance for a do-over that may let more people with Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences reductions.
