Source: http://pcr-consultants.com/category/legal/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 21:33:06
Document Index: 575212645

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3583', '§ 3553', '§45', '§5014', '§1963', '§1701']

Legal News and Views – Page 2 – PCR Consultants
A group of posts and articles about laws and jurisprudence that effect the indicted, incarcerated, or supervised probationers in the Federal system.
Federal Supervised Release is not Punishment
The Seventh Circuit on Federal Supervised Release
A few years ago, the Seventh Circuit published an order clearly showing their views on the imposition and purpose of federal supervised release. That circuit is back at it again with an opinion regarding three separate cases, challenging their supervised release conditions.1 Thanks to the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog for the head’s-up on this one.
There are some key points made by this ruling that anybody interested in the nuts-and-bolts of federal supervised release should be aware of. If you are on supervised release, or interested in the subject at all, the entire opinion is a must read.
To start off with, the Circuit posted a history and usage overview of supervised release. The most interesting part of this section of the order is below:
“The purposes of supervised release have been variously described as rehabilitation, deterrence, training and treatment, protection of the public, and reduction of recidivism.”2(Citations omitted and footnoted)
“Supervised release was not intended to be imposed for the purposes of punishment or incapacitation, “since those purposes will have been served to the extent necessary by the term of imprisonment.”3…see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (directing a court contemplating the imposition of supervised release to consider most sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), except the need for the sentence to provide just punishment for the offense). The Supreme Court has described supervised release as “the decompression stage” between prison and full release.”4 (Citations omitted and footnoted))
What this says is simple. The goals of supervised release are not to further punish the defendant, since that is what incarceration is for. The factors courts must consider when contemplating a term of federal supervised release all almost the same as the one’s they consider when imposing prison time. The only difference is that court’s cannot consider the need for supervised release to provide just punishment for the offense.
Let us look at this from the perspective of one who wishes to gain early release from federal supervised release. If, 1) the purpose of supervised release is not to inflict more punishment for the underlying crime; and 2) the “decompression state” between prison and full release is accomplished, then there is no reason to keep a defendant on supervision any longer.
The trick is proving that this decompression stage is over. From lots of prior 7th Circuit decisions, we have these factors that mark this decompression and satisfy that requirement. From the first quoted section, these five purposes of supervision are:
Training and Treatment: do you have enough treatment and education to stay clean from crime and to keep stable employment? Stability of home and job is a key indicator to judges that you pose a low risk to commit new crimes. Sometimes it just matters how busy you are. Job? Kids? Wife/Husband? All these keep a person busy, and no idle time means no time to devote to criminal behavior. “Idle hands are the Devils’ playground” and all…
So far, we’ve only viewed about 6 pages of this 68-page opinion. However, this is plenty to digest for now. If you’re looking to get early release from federal probation or federal supervised release, consider the purpose of supervision and ask yourself if you’re finished with its intended goals. If so, you could be a prime candidate!
U.S. vs. Kappes, U.S. vs. Crisp, and U.S. vs. Jurgens; Nos. 14-1223, 14-2135, & 14-2482 respectively and decided April 8, 2015. [↩]
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60 (2000); United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Evans, 727 F.3d 730, 733 (7th Cir. 2013) [↩]
S. Rep. No.98-225, at 125; see also Johnson, 529 U.S. 59 (“Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”) [↩]
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 709 (2000). [↩]
Tagged Federal Supervised Release Jurgens Nos Seventh Circuit United States
Criminal Defense Booms When Everything’s a Crime
Criminal Defense – A System of Perpetuation
Criminal defense is a lucrative business. Lawyers spend years in a prosecutor or public defender’s office working long hours for low pay (and huge case-loads) just to get the experience in the trenches of criminal trials to finally switch to private practice. That’s where the real money is.
Many people realize that the American system of criminal justice is badly broken, and the criminal defense industry along with it. Ever wonder why defense attorneys don’t
“I can get you a plea for only 3 years in prison!”spend big bucks for lobbyists to change the laws that ensnare so many of their clients? Because that would mean fewer paying clients.
Did you know that Correctional Officer’s unions pay top dollar for lobbyists to get harsh punishment laws passed like California’s now-infamous “Three Strikes” law. Laws like this mean more jobs and more union dues.
Criminal defense is lucrative, so less criminal defendants means less money. On the other side of sentencing, less inmates means few correctional officer jobs. The system is designed to have a continual flow of criminal defendants and inmates to feed it.
Is Everything a Crime Now?
As sarcastic as the titles of this section may seem, America is really becoming a society that is ciminalizing everything. There was a book published a few years ago titled, “Three Felonies a Day” by Harvey Silverglate, and recently we’ve been following @CrimADay on Twitter.
We’ve all seen the online galleries detailing whacky laws in different states. But what about real laws that carry real prison time, and are enforced? Here are a few:
16 U.S.C. §§45e, 60 & 62 make it a federal crime to carry around a dead bird in Yosemite National Park.
40 U.S.C. §§5014(d), 5109(b) & 2 U.S.C. §1963 make it a federal crime to use the US Capitol Grounds as a playground and injure the grass.
18 U.S.C. §1701 makes it a federal crime to slow down a mailman.
In an article entitled The Crimes of the Century, Matt Kaiser details a recent case that shows that these aren’t just whacky laws that don’t get enforced.
As an example, let us consider a recent case from the Western District of Pennsylvania.
According to a recent press release from that office, a woman was indicted for theft of United States Mail. (Because it seems awfully mean to make her more Google-able, I’m not going to use her name here.)
Apparently, she looted a greeting card that was being sent to someone in Cranberry Township.
The article goes on to describe the prosecution of this crime, that resulted in the theft of two crisp $20 bills. Maximum penalty? 5 years and up to a $250k fine. Over $40. How much has the government already spent prosecuting this case? How much has she paid her attorney for her criminal defense? Who knows…
When everything can be made criminal, two things happen. First, prosecutors can prosecute anybody and begin to do so selectively. This means that prosecutors could target political enemies, and with absolute power comes absolute corruption (eventually). Another effect from the fallout of this is the booming criminal defense industry, feeding lawyers to strive for more clients. That leads to the second point.
Second, the class system evolves from this. Lawyers and workers inside the criminal justice system, and civilians. Have you ever noticed how many politicians are also lawyers? Those that benefit from the laws are making them!
Tagged criminal defense Harvey Silverglate
Sentence Commutations for Drug Offenders
Obama is stingy with sentence commutations
Its a sad fact that Obama has pardoned and commuted less sentences in his presidency than any other president in modern American history. In a positive recent action, Obama issued 22 sentence commutations to federal inmates serving time for drug-related crimes.
These 22 sentence commutations nearly double the number of these actions that he took in the first three-quarters of his presidency. In an article from The Atlantic, snarkily titled, “Obama Offers Commutations to 22 of 209,155 Federal Prisoners,” David A. Graham delves into the good and bad news surrounding these commutations.
Here’s How that article gets going:
For opponents of the War on Drugs—a group that seems to be growing—and those who think the U.S. incarcerates too many people, Tuesday brought some good news and bad news.
The Good News: President Obama has announced that he’s issuing commutations to 22 individuals. They all share convictions for drug offenses; eight would have died in prison if not for clemency.
The Bad News: As The Huffington Post notes, that more than doubles the number of commutations and pardons Obama has issued through the first three-quarters of his presidency. As my colleague Matt Ford noted in December, Obama has been stingy with his mercy, even by the standard of recent presidents, who have used their power more infrequently (though George W. Bush issued only 11 commutations over two terms). Ron Fournier also wrote an excellent analysis of Obama’s pardons in 2013.
Commutations versus Pardons
Sometimes these two words get used interchangeably, and their meanings get lost, so lets clarify. A presidential pardon comes to ex-cons who are out of prison and want their crimes wiped off their criminal record. Pardons usually come at the end of a president’s term to wealthy donors who have no other criminal history besides the one federal conviction to which the pardon is being requested. Translation: pardons are for free men who want to get rid of their criminal record.
Commutations are a different animal. Sentence commutations don’t take away the underlying conviction, it only erases the remaining sentence so an inmate can go free immediately. The 22 people who received sentence commutations on Tuesday would have already been free had they been sentenced under current sentencing guidelines, so these commutations aren’t controversial at all.
Obama is to be applauded for his actions, while still encouraged to do more. As the title of the Atlantic article points out, over 200k inmates are still incarcerated in the federal Bureau of Prisons. Considering America has about 5% of the world’s total population, but 25% of the world’s prison population, Obama could do much more to leverage his pardon and commutation power to affect a lot of change.
Sentence Commutations are a good start, though.
Tagged Bureau of Prisons drug setnences Federal obama pardons sentence commutations
Marijuana Legalization, Coram Nobis, and Federal Felonies
An interesting question arose for PCR Consultants the other day. With the growing trend the United States these days to legalize pot, what would happen if the federal government actually gave up the Weed branch of its War on Drugs.
Plenty of people believe that locking up citizens in the US for simple Marijuana possession, especially non-violent offenders, is a waste of taxpayer money. Federal felonies can lock up these offenders for decades, given a sufficiently long rap-sheets to justify large sentencing enhancements.
The landscape of Marijuana legalization has changed drastically over the last few years. In 2010, California nearly passed a ballot measure that would have decriminalized normal possession of consumable Cannabis. From SF Weekly writer Chris Roberts:
Buoyed by Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee’s cash and energy, Proposition 19 — which would have legalized possession of up to an ounce of pot for adults 21 and over, and allowed cultivation of small gardens — lost in November 2010. It garnered a historic 4.6 million votes, or 46.2 percent of ballots cast. Following the loss, Lee declared on election night that legalization was inevitable, and that legalization would return in 2012 “stronger than ever” with a new ballot measure.1
What would happen, then, if pot was legalized? Would non-violent federal felonies for Marijuana crimes be erased, and the offenders relieved of their weed-based criminal record?
To explore this issue further, we look at Honest Services Fraud and CEO-turned-convict Jeffrey Skilling. What, you may be wondering, does a high-profile-former-Enron-CEO have to do with weed?
Skilling took his federal felony to the US Supreme Court, who decided that some of what Skilling did was not actually a crime. This was a groundbreaking restriction on the application of Honest Services Fraud, and enough to call into question plenty of felonies that stood upon a broader definition of this type of fraud. In effect, many inmates were incarcerated for what may not be a crime any longer.
One of Illinois’ incarcerated former governors2 seized upon the Skilling decision to try and spring him from federal prison. Crime in the Suites reports on this (unsuccessful) attempt:
On the other hand, if what you did falls exactly under Skilling, you have a case. Nicholas Panarella was convicted of exactly the type of crime that the Skilling ruling said was no longer criminal. Matt Mangino reported on that case this way:
U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin ruled that Nicholas Panarella, Jr., convicted in a political corruption scheme, is entitled to a “writ of error coram nobis” to vacate his conviction based on an honest services wire fraud scheme, according to The Legal Intelligencer.
Judge McLaughlin ruled that Panarella’s conviction is no longer valid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Skilling v. Untied States, which significantly narrowed the scope of the honest-services-fraud statute.
“Where a person is convicted and punished for conduct that is not a crime, such circumstances constitute the sort of fundamental error that may warrant coram nobis relief,” McLaughlin wrote.
McLaughlin said there was “no dispute that Panarella was charged solely with the undisclosed self-dealing theory that was invalidated by Skilling”, reported the Intelligencer. As a result, Panarella’s conviction “was predicated solely on conduct that is no longer a crime.”
In one case above, the underlying conduct of former Governor Ryan did not become lawful from the Skilling ruling. In the other, the Writ of Error Coram Nobis was used successfully when the underlying conduct of that person was declared “not illegal”.
So many federal felonies are out there for Marijuana that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article. If Marijuana is de-criminalized at the federal level, a great many federal prisoners could be eligible for having their convictions thrown out
Marijuana Legalization Effort Fails in California, Thanks to Money and the Feds [↩]
and there are two: Ryan and Blagojevich [↩]
Posted in In Prison Legal News and Views Supervised Release and Probation
Tagged Honest Services Fraud Jeffrey Skilling Legalized Pot Marijuana United States