Source: https://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/criminal_defenses/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:58:21+00:00

Document:
US v. Brandao, No. 07-1215 (8/21/08). This case has the phrase “acknowledging the able advocacy by defense counsel.” We all know what this means. The client is going down. To jail. Well, he was poor, and there was a split in the circuits. Anyway, because I am on my way home from China, I don't have the time to give a good analysis of this, so whoever wrote this opinion gets a pass.
Anyway, this case hits on two of the difficult issues in criminal law. The First, resolves them in favor of the government.
Of general interest is the issue of whether the government can avoid a constructive indictment argument via notice found in the jury instructions. Alas, this is on plain error review. This is unpreserved, so the First says that it is not a structural defect (the Fourth, which never takes these things seriously, holds that it is is structural). The First says it isn't structural, because, well, the Supreme Court (in the First's mind) doesn't want to create new structural defects. So, whatever.
As usual, the First gives a green light to the prosecutor's closing arguments. Same deal with Brady material.
US v. DeCologero, Nos. 06-1274, 06-2390, 06-2391, 06-2392, 06-2569, 07-1086 . This is a pretty violent RICO case. I am not really going to do it justice. It has dismemberments. The First takes many pages to catalogue the facts, which include an attempted forced overdose of heroin, and a trip to Home Depot.
The petitioner raises a new question for this court involving the interplay between the immigration law's definition of aggravated felons, who are ineligible for cancellation of removal, and the federal criminal statutory exception in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) for reducing certain felony marijuana offenses from felonies to misdemeanor status.
I put more stuff down below.
US v. Otero, No. 07-1555 holds that in a “Rule 11" (i.e. a change of plea) proceeding, a defendant was “aware of the intent element of the drug-trafficking offense” even though the judge didn’t read it out loud. He raises an “entrapment” argument, but because he plead guilty and there was no real chance that he would succeed on that defense, that fails, too.
US v. Lewis, No. 07-1249. Okay, this is a selective prosecution appeal. Since Selya writes it and the defendant is a black Muslim accused of fairly innocuous false statements on the forms one must fill out when one gets a gun, who also might have gone to some countries with less than sterling reputations we know where it is going. In the past three years nobody else had been prosecuted for this in the Disitrct, and the USAO seems (this isn't clear) to have deviated from its normal practice. And, as Selya always does when send someone to jail, he used big words so that he can seem really smart.
We live in an era in which the incidence of violent crime is high and terrorism is a persistent threat. In that climate, a false statement in a firearms application raises a modicum of concern, and the level of concern escalates almost exponentially as the number of weapons and the number of false statements grow.
This case comes to the First on an appeal from a denial of a motion for discovery in aid of his selective prosecution argument.
US v. Hatch, No. 06-1902. Okay, this is the appeal of that guy that won “Survivor” and didn’t pay taxes on his winnings. He was convicted of three counts of filing false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7206(1). He signed a contract which said that he would pay all taxes on his winning in this stupid show. He later made some other money by appearing on some pilots of even stupider TV shows.
Anyway, stepping back from the stupidity of popular culture, let’s take a look at the live issues.
He wanted to argue that the procedures of the show were cheating and feeding the contestants. The producers, he claims, in exchange for his silence on the issue, promised to pay his taxes and therefore under Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) he wasn’t willfully failing to pay his taxes. But, nobody actually testified to such a promise, and it doesn’t seem like he was actually prevented from offering such testimony, though the actual rulings that the District Court made in the heat of the trial seemed to come fast and furious during direct, so maybe someone misunderstand what doors were open to what testimony.
The First also says that the “expert” testimony of IRS agents was error. But the First says that they were really “fact” witnesses. The First says that objections were either waived or not plain error.
The District Court has precluded certain testimony from the defendant’s accountant, but these seem to be on relevance grounds.
On the other side, he argued that the District Court improperly imposed limits on his cross. The First bashes counsel by saying that some of the proposed questions were “incoherent.” The First also says that his cross-examination just wasn’t restricted.
And, for all the sentencing buffs out there: a perjury enhancement was proper, even though he was acquitted of a perjury count. The First says the issue (like the amount of loss) isn’t developed.
U.S. v. Rodríguez-Durán, et al. Nos. 06-1400, 06-1401, 06-1402, 06-1403, 06-1404, 06-1405, 06-1406, 06-1407, 06-1408. This case affirms the conviction of nine seamen that were caught with a bunch of drugs off the coast of South America near Curaçao. Of note is the fact that the District Court denied continuances and went to trial within forty days from the indictment.
Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA") an conspiracy charges.
Read on. Happy Thanksgiving. Turkey is murder.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 841
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.