second circuit criminal law update - criminal … circuit lecture 2016...second circuit criminal law...
TRANSCRIPT
Second Circuit Criminal Law Update
Richard Levitt LEVITT & KAIZER
40 Fulton Street, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10038
(212) 480-4000
1
2
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
The Deputy Attorney General Uf:Jshington, D.C. 20530
September 9, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION THE ASSIST ANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION THE ASSIST ANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NATIONAL
SECURITY DIVISION THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, TAX DIVISION THE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THE DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED ST A TES
TRUSTEES ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: Sally Quillian Yates Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing
Fighting corporate fraud and other misconduct is a top priority of the Department of Justice. Our nation ' s economy depends on effective enforcement of the civil and criminal laws that protect our financial system and, by extension, all our citizens. These are principles that the Department lives and breathes- as evidenced by the many attorneys, agents, and support staff who have worked tirelessly on corporate investigations, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing. Such accountability is important for several reasons: it deters future illegal activity, it incentivizes changes in corporate behavior, it ensures that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions, and it promotes the public's confidence in our justice system.
“It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a eunuch of rape” — Judge Kozinski
3
4 Complete Reversals Last Year
4
“Cannibal Cop” Conviction ReversedUnited States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508(12.3.15) (Parker).
•Defendant, a cop, was member of the Dark Fetish Network
•Chats with members consistedof “gruesome and graphic descriptions of kidnapping, torturing, cooking, raping, murdering, and cannibalizing various women,” including his wife
•Charged with conspiracy to kidnap the women he spoke about online
•District court granted judgment of acquittal following kidnapping conviction
5
U.S. v. Valle, Cont’d
• Government agent testified that Valle’s conversations with 21 of 24 individuals he met on DFN were “fantasy”
• Gov: Valle’s conversations with other three persons contained “elements of real crime”
• Court: There was no discernible difference between the “real” and “fantasy” chats
6
U.S. v. Valle, cont’d
“If the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt”
U.S. v. Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 544 F.3d 149, 159 (2d Cir.2008)
7
U.S. v. Valle, Cont’dApplication of Rule of Lenity
• Valle also charged with violating Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1080(a)(2)(B)), imposing liability on one who ““intentionally accesses a computer without authorization”
• He was authorized to use the Omnixx Force Mobile (“OFM”) program access various databases but NYPD policy permitted access only in the course of cop’s official duties
• “[W]here, as here, the Government and the defense both posit plausible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires us to adopt the defendant's construction”
8
Rule 403 — Threat to Kill WitnessU.S. v. Morgan, 786 F.3d 227 (5.19.15) (Jacobs, Calabresi, Wesley)
Should defendant’s letter to girlfriend evidencing his intention to have principal cooperating witness killed have been excluded under Rule 403?
9
U.S. v. Morgan, cont’d
“It cannot be said that the evidence of death threats had no tendency to demonstrate consciousness of guilt… At the same time, the government was required to demonstrate that it had an ‘important purpose’ for the introduction of the death threat evidence during Williams's direct examination… Plainly, it is no such purpose to ‘induc[e] decision on a purely emotional basis.’ Fed.R.Evid. 403 advisory committee's note”
10
Practice Tip: Rule 403 may be a viable option to
avoid arguably relevant — but unfairly prejudicial — evidence
Juror’s Lies During Voir DireU.S. v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (6.8.2015) (Kearse, Straub, Wesley)
•Case charged frauds relating to marketing of tax shelters
•After trial evidence suggested that juror lied during voir dire, and failed to disclose she was a suspended attorney with several arrests
•Prior to post-verdict hearing, juror told Judge Pauley that she didn’t think an evidentiary hearing was necessary because "[Defendants are] fricken crooks and they should be in jail and you know that”
•District court granted new trial to all defendants except Parse, finding that his lawyers knew of juror fraud and/or failed to act on information with reasonable diligence, amounting to waiver
11
Juror’s Lies During Voir DireU.S. v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (6.8.2015) (Kearse, Straub, Wesley)
District court wrongly found that defendant Parce’s attorneys had actual knowledge that juror was suspended lawyer, and defense counsel’s alleged lack of due diligence was not a waiver of defendant’s right to an impartial jury
.
12
Related Issue: Cert granted 4.4.16 in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado: May a “no impeachment rule (such as FRE 606(b))
constitutionally bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial
jury?”
Expert TestimonyU.S. v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (12.8.15) (Straub, Parker, Carney)
Should expert have been permitted to testify in security fraud case that sophisticated purchasers of complex securities would not have found relevant statements by sell-side salesman regarding the value of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (“RMBS”) or the price at which they acquired it or could acquire it?
13
New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.1: “Truthfulness in Statements to Others”:
In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person
“What is a lie under circumstances in which no one expects the truth to be told?" asks Joseph Badaracco, professor of ethics at Harvard Business School
14
Litvak, Cont’d Relevance
Was evidence that defendant’s supervisors regularly approved conduct identical to that for which defendant was charged, properly excluded as irrelevant?
15
Buyer-Seller Relationship U.S. v. Brock, 789 F.3d 60 (6.3.15) (Parker)
Did defendant’s purchase of crack for resale from drug organization make him a member of conspiracy?
16
Second Circuit Stats
CIRCUIT STATS
17
SECOND CIRCUIT TRIAL REVERSALS — 2015
3.15%
96.85%
Affirmed (126) Reversed 4
18
SECOND CIRCUIT TRIAL REVERSALS — 2000-2015
4.15%
95.85%
Affirmed (2171) Reversed (94)
19
02
46
810
1214
Carn
eyDr
oney
Ragg
iSt
raub
Living
ston
Lohie
rCa
bran
esW
alker
Katzm
ann
Wes
leyLy
nch
Leva
lNe
wman
Kear
seCa
labre
siHa
llCh
inSa
ckW
inter
B.D.
Par
ker
Poole
rJa
cobs
14
99
544
3332222
111111000
NUMBER OF AUTHORED REVERSALS (TRIAL APPEALS) SITTING JUDGES (2000 - 2015)
20
REVERSAL RATES (TRIAL APPEALS) — SITTING JUDGES 2000-2015
0
2.25
4.5
6.75
9Li
ving
ston
Wal
ker
Rag
giN
ewm
anC
abra
nes
Lync
hD
rone
yLe
val
Hal
lK
atzm
ann
Kea
rse
Sack
Chi
nSt
raub
Pool
erW
esle
yLo
hier
Win
ter
Lohi
erJa
cobs
Car
ney
Cal
abre
siPa
rker
9
7.67.37.2
6.1
4.94.94.84.54
3.63.63.4332.72.62.32.121.91.61.3
21
What About Complete Reversals of State CourtConvictions?
Convictions — Habeas Corpus?
22
Right to Cross re MotiveNappi v. Yelich, 793 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 7.15.15)
(Jacobs, Calabresi, Lynch)
• Defendant charged in state court with possessing a gun in violation of parole, after his wife informed on him
• Jury hung at first trial, which included “motive” evidence of wife’s alleged affair
• Defendant convicted at retrial, where trial court excluded evidence of affair
• Were defendant’s confrontation rights clearly violated?
23
Practice tip: Courts have much less discretion to preclude evidence of a direct motive to lie, as opposed to general
impeachment evidence
Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
Lynch v. Dolce, 789 F.3d 303 (6.18.2015)(Lynch, Leval, Droney)
•Appellate counsel failed to argue that trial court should have instructed jury that, to convict petitioner of robbery by using or threatening the immediate use of a dangerous instrument, it had to find that petitioner actually possessed a dangerous instrument at the time of the crime
•District court wrongly found defendant not prejudiced because sufficient evidence nonetheless supported finding that petitioner possessed a weapon at the relevant time; proper test under Strickland is whether there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the outcome would have been different
24
Where Have All the Prosecutions Gone?
25
Where Have All The Prosecutions Gone?
26
Federal Prosecutions Down > 20%
Indictments: Informations:
27
EDNY PROSECUTIONSSOURCE: TRACFED
28
2/18/2016 Prosecutions through September 2015
http://tracfed.syr.edu/results/9x7056c5cbaea9.html 1/3
Number Yeartodate 935
Percent Change from previous year 3.3
Percent Change from 5 years ago 42
Percent Change from 10 years ago 53.9
Percent Change from 20 years ago 71.2
Table 1: Criminal Prosecutions
New York East Prosecutions for 2015
The latest available data from the Justice Departmentshow that during FY 2015 the government reported 935new prosecutions in the Eastern District of New York(Brooklyn). According to the casebycase informationanalyzed by the Transactional Records AccessClearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 3.3% over thepast fiscal year when the number of prosecutions totaled905.
The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with offenses are based on casebycaseinformation obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office forUnited States Attorneys (see Table 1).
Compared to five years ago when there were 1,612, the number of FY 2015 prosecutions of thistype is down 42 percent. Prosecutions over the past year are lower than they were ten years ago.Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are down 53.9 percent from the level of2,028 reported in 2005 and down 71.2 percent from the level of 3,241 reported in 1995.
The long term trend in prosecutions for these matters going back to FY 1995 is shown moreclearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of prosecutions of this typerecorded each fiscal year. Each presidential administration is distinguished by the color of thebars. To view trends monthbymonth rather than yearbyyear, see TRAC's monthly report seriesfor the latest data.
Figure 1: Criminal Prosecutions over the last 20 years
Leading Program Areas
Cases were classified by prosecutors into more specific types. The single largest number ofprosecutions of these matters through September 2015 was for "Narcotics/Drugs", accounting for24.5 percent of prosecutions.
The second largest number of matters were Prosecutions filed under the program area of"Withheld by Govt from TRAC " (17.4%) . The "Other" category in Figure 2 is comprised of a
SDNY PROSECUTIONSSOURCE: TRACFED
29
2/18/2016 Prosecutions through September 2015
http://tracfed.syr.edu/results/9x7056c5d0f413.html 1/3
Number Yeartodate 1,804
Percent Change from previous year 5.3
Percent Change from 5 years ago 24.9
Percent Change from 10 years ago 36.8
Percent Change from 20 years ago 30.4
Table 1: Criminal Prosecutions
New York South Prosecutions for 2015
The latest available data from the Justice Departmentshow that during FY 2015 the government reported1,804 new prosecutions in the Southern District of NewYork (Manhattan). According to the casebycaseinformation analyzed by the Transactional RecordsAccess Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 5.3%over the past fiscal year when the number ofprosecutions totaled 1,714.
The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with offenses are based on casebycaseinformation obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office forUnited States Attorneys (see Table 1).
Compared to five years ago when there were 2,403, the number of FY 2015 prosecutions of thistype is down 24.9 percent. Prosecutions over the past year are lower than they were ten yearsago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are down 36.8 percent from the level of2,854 reported in 2005 and down 30.4 percent from the level of 2,591 reported in 1995.
The long term trend in prosecutions for these matters going back to FY 1995 is shown moreclearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of prosecutions of this typerecorded each fiscal year. Each presidential administration is distinguished by the color of thebars. To view trends monthbymonth rather than yearbyyear, see TRAC's monthly report seriesfor the latest data.
Figure 1: Criminal Prosecutions over the last 20 years
Leading Program Areas
Cases were classified by prosecutors into more specific types. The single largest number ofprosecutions of these matters through September 2015 was for "Narcotics/Drugs", accounting for30.2 percent of prosecutions.
The second largest number of matters were Prosecutions filed under the program area of "WhiteCollar Crime " (21.1%) . The "Other" category in Figure 2 is comprised of a diverse group of
Official Corruption Prosecutions Falls to 20 Year LowTransactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 3.23.16
30
White Collar Crime Convictions Continue To DeclineTransactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 4.7.16
31
Headed Toward More White Collar Prosecutions?— Yates Memo
32
Headed Toward More White Collar Prosecutions?— Yates Memo
33
Yates Memo
(l) in order to qualify for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the misconduct;
(2) criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation;
(3) criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another;
34
Yates Memo
(4) absent extraordinary circumstances or approved departmental policy, the Department will not release culpable individuals from civil or criminal liability when resolving a matter with a corporation;
(5) Department attorneys should not resolve matters with a corporation without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases, and should memorialize any declinations as to individuals in such cases; and
(6) civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual's ability to pay
35
“Going forward, corporate plea agreements and settlement agreements will include a provision that requires the companies to continue providing relevant information to the government about any individuals implicated in the wrongdoing. A company's failure to continue cooperating against individuals will be considered material breach of the agreement and grounds for revocation or stipulated penalties”
-Dep, Atty, Gen, Yates36
Yates Memo Fallout “Analyzing Early Returns on the Yates
Memo,” by William F. Johnson (NYLJ 3.3.2016)• “The government has, post-Yates Memo, requested that
companies not share certain information with counsel for their employee-witnesses during the investigation”
• “The practice is unfair to the individuals who … should be permitted access to the information available to them at the time of the events under investigation (such as their own emails, documents, and even company-made recordings of their phone calls). [It] also prevents the company from fully defending itself because it cannot review the evidence in the investigation with its own employees or former employees”
37
False Wisdom
38
“It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a
eunuch of rape”
Hon. Alex Kozinski, Preface to 2015 Georgetown L.J. Review of Criminal Procedure
False Wisdom
• Eyewitnesses are highly reliable
• Fingerprint evidence is foolproof
• Other types of forensic evidence are scientifically proven and therefore infallible
• DNA evidence is infallible
39
False Wisdom
• Human memories are reliable
• Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess
• Juries follow instructions
• Prosecutors play fair
40
False Wisdom
• The prosecution is at a substantial disadvantage because it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt
• Police are objective in their investigations
• Guilty pleas are conclusive proof of guilt
• Long sentences deter crime
41
DOJ 11.4.2015 Rebuttal to Kozinski Preface
• Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, National Criminal Discovery Coordinator Office of the Deputy Attorney General
• John F. Walsh, United States Attorney, District of Colorado; Chair – Attorney General’s Advisory Committee
42
“While the preface raises several points that merit discussion, such as the reliability of certain forms of evidence, Judge Kozinski goes too far in casting aspersions on the men and women responsible for the administration of justice in this country. His preface seemed to question not only the integrity of our agents and prosecutors, but also the government’s capacity to self-correct in the (very small) minority of cases when someone falls short”
43
Kozinski’s Suggestions
Require open file discovery
Adopt standardized, rigorous procedures for dealing with the government’s disclosure obligations
Adopt standardized, rigorous procedures for eyewitness identification
Video record all suspect interrogations
44
Suggestions, Cont’d
Impose strict limits on the use of jailhouse informants
Adopt rigorous, uniform procedures for certifying expert witnesses and preserving the integrity of the testing process
Keep adding conviction integrity units
Establish independent Prosecutorial Integrity Units
45
Antonin Scalia
March 13, 1936 - February 13, 2016
46
First Amendment“I don’t care who is doing the speech — the more
the merrier” • Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (Brennan)
• provided the pivotal fifth vote holding that there is a First Amendment right to burn the American Flag
• But said: “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag”
• R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (Scalia) • finding facially invalid under First A city ordinance prohibiting
bias-oriented disorderly conduct, used to prosecute cross-burner
• "burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire”
47
6th A. Right To Jury Trial/ Sentencing Guidelines
• Apprendi v. N.J., 530 U.S. 466 (2000) — concurrence
• Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) — author
• U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) — concurred in main opinion, dissented from remedial opinion
48
Confrontation• Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (6th A did not bar the
use of one-way closed-circuit television to present testimony by an alleged child sex abuse victim)
• Scalia, in dissent (joined by Brennan, Marshal and Stevens):
“The Court has convincingly proved that the Maryland procedure serves a valid interest, and gives the defendant virtually everything the Confrontation Clause guarantees (everything, that is, except confrontation). I am persuaded, therefore, that the Maryland procedure is virtually constitutional. Since it is not, however, actually constitutional I would affirm the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of conviction”
49
“The Court has convincingly proved that the Maryland procedure serves a valid interest, and gives the defendant virtually everything the Confrontation Clause guarantees (everything, that is, except confrontation). I am persuaded, therefore, that the Maryland procedure is virtually constitutional. Since it is not, however, actually constitutional I would affirm the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of conviction”
50
Confrontation
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Scalia): Defendant must have had opportunity to cross-examine witness as predicate to admitting prior testimonial statements of witness who has since become unavailable, even if “inherently reliable”
• Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (Scalia): Introduction of murder victim’s previous report that defendant threatened to kill her violated confrontation clause. Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies only where purpose of conduct is to prevent testimony
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (Scalia): 6th A violation to admit a chemical drug test report (cocaine) without the testimony of the person who performed the test
• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) — joined majority opinion of Ginsburg, with Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan — defendant had right to confront analyst who certified blood-alcohol analysis report in DUI case
51
Fourth Amendment
• Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (Scalia) — use of thermal imaging device to measure heat emanating from home was a search
• U.S. v. Jones,132 S.Ct.945 (2012) (Scalia) — attachment of Global–Positioning–System (GPS) tracking device to vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor vehicle's movements on public streets, was 4th A search
• Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013) (Scalia) — law enforcement officers' use of drug-sniffing dog on front porch of home, to investigate an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home, was a trespassory invasion of the curtilage which constituted a 4th A search
52
Fourth Amendment Dissents
• Navarette v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014) (Thomas) — motorist’s anonymous 911 emergency call, reporting that a pickup truck had run her off the road, was sufficiently reliable and established reasonable suspicion for stop
• Scalia dissent: “Law enforcement agencies follow closely our judgments on matters such as this, and they will identify at once our new rule: So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop. This is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers', of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures… The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail…”
53
Fourth Amendment Dissents
•Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct .1958) (2013) (upholding DNA swabbing for persons arrested for “serious” offenses)
•Scalia dissent, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan: “Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime”
54
Gleeson Legacy
55
“The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned.”
—Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption
56
Prior Felony Informations under 21 U.S.C. § 851
U.S. v. Kupa, 976 F.Supp.2d 417
“There was no suggestion that Congress enacted § 851 so prosecutors could use their newfound discretion to trigger enhanced punishments as a tool to strong-arm federal defendants into pleading guilty or to punish those who exercise their right to a trial“
57
U.S. v. Kupa, Cont’d
“My focus here is narrow and my point is simple: as the defendant Lulzim Kupa's case and countless others show, the government abuses its power to file prior felony informations in drug trafficking cases. The single most important factor that influences the government's decision whether to file or threaten to file a prior felony information (or to withdraw or promise to withdraw one that has previously been filed) is illegitimate”
58
Holder PolicyThe 8/12/13 Holder Memo provides that the decision to file the § 851 prior felony complaint requires consideration of the following factors:
• Whether the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of others within a criminal organization;
• Whether the defendant was involved in the use or threat of violence in connection with the offense;
• The nature of the defendant's criminal history, including any prior history of violent conduct or recent prior convictions for serious offenses;
• Whether the defendant has significant ties to large-scale drug trafficking organizations, gangs, or cartels;
• Whether the filing would create a gross sentencing disparity with equally or more culpable co-defendants; and
• Other case-specific aggravating or mitigating factors.
59
Practice Tip: Whenever the government threatens to file a § 851 prior felony complaint, consider submitting a letter to the USAO and Main Justice arguing why the complaint would be inconsistent with the Holder Policy
Disclosing Proffers of Non-Cooperating Defendants
U.S. v. Rivera, 117 F.Supp.3d 172 (7.22.15)
May the Department of Probation inform the sentencing court of inculpatory statements made by the defendant at a proffer that did not result in a cooperation agreement?
60
U.S. v. Rivera, Cont’d
“In any prosecution brought against Client…, the Office will not offer in evidence any statements made by Client at the Meeting (A) in its case-in-chief or (B) at sentencing [with certain exceptions]. The Office will, to the extent it believes it is required by law, notify the Probation Department and the Court in connection with sentencing of any [relevant] statements made by Client at the Meeting”
61
U.S. v. Rivera, Cont’d• Government Argument: 18 U.S.C. § 3661 provides that the
court can consider, without limit any and all information relevant to sentencing
• The Court: Fact that court may consider all information doesn’t mean it should receive information parties agreed should be excluded:
• “Against th[e] extensive backdrop of [the government’s] withholding (and sometimes even misrepresenting) facts, the government's current insistence that it feels required by statute to tell judges all facts relevant to all sentences is difficult to take seriously”
62
U.S. v. Rivera, cont’d• Government Argument: To the extent the proffer agreement
includes a promise to withhold Rivera's proffer statements from the Court, such a promise is unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy as expressed by the Second Circuit
• The Court: “One wonders both why the government executed such an agreement with Rivera if it actually believes it was contrary to public policy to do so, and why it continues to execute substantially identical agreements with proffering defendants to this day”
• In any event Second Circuit holdings do not support the government’s position
63
NYLJ 11.20.15: “EDNY Judges No Longer Told of Proffer Admissions”
“The Eastern District U.S. Attorney's Office has discontinued a policy of notifying sentencing judges about proffer statements that defendants make in unsuccessful cooperation agreement talks”
64
Resentencing to Correct Excessive Sentence
U.S. v. Holloway, 68 F.Supp.3d 310 (7.25.14)
“A federal judge concluded Tuesday that a man who has spent approximately 19 years of a 58-year sentence in prison for multiple armed carjackings had paid his debt to society and resentenced him to time served. The outcome, said Gleeson, was "not a matter of grace. It is an effort on our part to do what we're here to do: administer justice”
65
Expungement Doe v. U.S.,110 F.Supp.3d 448 (5.21.15)
Granting expungement to naturalized citizen from Haiti and single mother of four, convicted of relatively minor health care fraud, and who lost several jobs when employers learned of her conviction
66
Follow Up: Shortly after Doe, SDCA District Judge Larry Burns granted
similar relief
Certificate of Rehabilitation U.S. v. Doe, 15-MC-1174 (JG) (3.7.16)
67
SUPREME COURT REVIEW
68
Mens Rea for ThreatsElonis v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2001 (2015) (Roberts)
To convict defendant of transmitting in interstate commerce “any communication containing any threat ... to injure the person of another,” (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) is it enough to prove that a reasonable person would have regarded the communication as a threat or must the government prove that the defendant intended that communication be viewed as a threat?
69
Elonis v. U.S., Cont’d
70
Elonis v. U.S., Cont’d
Jury instruction as given:
“A statement is a true threat when a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury or take the life of an individual.”
71
Elonis v. U.S., Cont’d• Mens rea must be proved even though not included in
statutory language
• “General rule” is that a guilty mind is “a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime
• In some cases, a general requirement that defendant act knowingly is sufficient, but where such a requirement “would fail to protect the innocent actor,” the statute “would need to be read to require ... specific intent”
• Instruction’s “reasonable person” language was a feature of civil tort liability not appropriate to convict of crime
72
Elonis v. U.S., Cont’d
Section 875(c)'s mental state requirement is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat
73
Mens Rea For Selling Analogue Drugs
McFadden v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2298 (6.18.2015) (Thomas)
•Defendant charged with selling analogue drugs (here, bath salts, producing effects such as cocaine or methamphetamine)
•Court instructed the jury that the statute required that “the defendant knowingly and intentionally distributed a mixture or substance that has” substantially similar effects on the nervous system as a controlled substance and “[t]hat the defendant intended for the mixture or substance to be consumed by humans”
•Appeals court: “intent element [in the Act] requires [only] that the government prove that the defendant meant for the substance at issue to be consumed by humans”
•Right or wrong?
74
McFadden, Cont’d
• Held:
Knowledge requirement can be established in two ways.
First, it can be established by evidence that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was dealing is some controlled substance—that is, one actually listed on the federal drug schedules or treated as such by operation of the Analogue Act—regardless of whether he knew the particular identity of the substance.
Second, it can be established by evidence that the defendant knew the specific analogue he was dealing with, even if he did not know its legal status as an analogue
75
Justice ROBERTS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.I join the Court's opinion, except to the extent that it says the Government can satisfy the mental state requirement of Section 841(a)(1) “by showing that the defendant knew the identity of the substance he possessed…” In cases involving well-known drugs such as heroin, a defendant's knowledge of the identity of the substance can be compelling evidence that he knows the substance is controlled. But that is not necessarily true for lesser known drugs
Practice Tip: Numerous statutes have ambiguous mens rea
requirements; resist any instructions that don’t require the government to prove the defendant, on some
level, understood he was acting wrongfully
McFadden, Cont’d
76
Confrontation: Ohio v. Clark, 135 S.Ct.
2173 (2015) (Alito)
Were three-year-old’s statements to teacher identifying defendant as his abuser primarily “testimonial” under the Confrontation Clause? •“Primary purpose test” not always dispositive •Also relevant:
•Was statement considered testimony at time of the Founding?
•Was statement to a law enforcement officer? •Was statement made during an ongoing emergency?
77
Ohio v. Clark, Cont’d
Irony: Three-year old’s out-of-court statements are admitted
to convict defendant of serious crime, but he is deemed incompetent to testify in court, and no 6th violation found because her out-of-court statements
were not “testimonial”
78
Ohio v. Clark, Scalia, Concurring
“I write separately, however, to protest the Court's shoveling of fresh dirt upon the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation so recently rescued from the grave in Crawford v. Washington…For several decades before that case, we had been allowing hearsay statements to be admitted against a criminal defendant if they bore “ ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980). Prosecutors, past and present, love that flabby test…
Crawford remains the law…The author unabashedly displays his hostility to Crawford and its progeny, perhaps aggravated by inability to muster the votes to overrule them….”
79
Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), held unconstitutionally vague
Offending language: term “violent felony” includes crime that “otherwiseinvolves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury toanother”
“[I]nvoking so shapeless a provision to condemn someone to prison for 15 years to life does not comport with the Constitution's guarantee of due process”
Vagueness Of ACCA Residual Clause: Johnson v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551 (6.26.15)
(Scalia)
80
Post-Johnson
• Circuits hold 18 U.S.C. § 16 (similarly defining “crime of violence” for purposes of Title 18) unconstitutional
• United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 813 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2016) (rehearing en band granted 2.26.16);
• United States v. Vivas–Ceja, 808 F.3d 719, 720 (7th Cir.2015);
• Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.2015)
81
Johnson RetroactiveWelch v. U.S. (4.18.16):
Johnson announced a new substantive rule that would be retroactive on collateral review
Government had agreed in Welch that Johnson is retroactive (SC appointed amicus to argue non-retroactivity)
82
Eleventh Circuit concurrence lists 100+ cases now made viable now that Welch
clarified Johnson's retroactivity
In re Robinson, No. 16-11304 (11th Cir. April 19, 2016) (Beverly Martin, concurring)
“[B]elow is a list of every case I know of in which this court denied an application from a prisoner seeking to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition based on Johnson. I share this list in the hope that these prisoners, who filed their applications without a lawyer’s help, may now know to refile their applications
83
YO Adjudications Under The ACCA
U.S. v. Sellers, 784 F.3d 876 (4.27.15) (Droney)
Does a drug conviction under New York law that resulted in a youthful offender adjudication qualify as a predicate conviction under the ACCA?
84
Pre-Trial Seizure of Untainted AssetsLuis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1083 (3.30.16) (Breyer,
plurality opinion)
Does the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets belonging to a defendant charged with violating federal health care of banking laws (18 U.S.C. § 1345), and needed to retain counsel of choice, violate the Sixth Amendment?
85
Luis v. U.S., Cont’d
“The relevant difference [between this case and Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto] consists of the fact that the property here is untainted; i.e., it belongs to the defendant, pure and simple”
86
Luis v. U.S., Cont’d
Justice Thomas’s concurrence:
“The asset freeze here is not merely an incidental burden on the right to counsel of choice; it targets a defendant’s assets, which are necessary to exercise that right, simply to secure forfeiture upon conviction. The prospect of that criminal punishment, however, is precisely why the Constitution guarantees a right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not permit the Government's bare expectancy of forfeiture to void that right”
87
Does Forfeiture Notice In Indictment Establish Necessary Nexus Between Crime and Seized
Property?U.S. v. Cosme, 796 F.3d 226 (8.10.15) (Walker)
Does inclusion of forfeiture demand in indictment establish existence of probable cause to seize identified property, precluding separate post-seizure due process hearing?
88
Brady ViolationWearry v. Cain, 136 S.Ct. 1002 (3.7.16)(pc)
• Capital convictions reversed for Brady violations, including post-trial revelations that:
• Lynchpin witness Scott ascribed conduct to a co-conspirator that likely was impossible given the co-conspirator’s recent surgery
• Scott coached an inmate to lie about the murder
• Scott may have implicated defendant to settle a personal score
• Prosecutor suggested that second witness — Brown — had not received a benefit for testifying but withheld fact that he sought — and still might receive — one
89
Brady ViolationLewis v. Conn. Com’r of Corr., 790 F.3d 109
(5.14.2015) (Walker)
•Contrary to state court’s finding, Brady does not incorporate a “due diligence” test
•Brady’s “should have known” standard speaks to facts already within the defendant's purview, not those that might be unearthed by taking affirmative steps
•The prosecutor’s asserted good faith — i.e. that he was unaware of the evidence — is irrelevant since, at least, the police knew
90
91
Limits Of FISAACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (5.7.15) (Lynch)
FBI and NSA’s collection of virtually all telephone metadata associated with telephone calls made by and to Americans found not relevant to authorized counterterrorism investigations and exceeded authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C.A. § 1861
92
ACLU v. Clapper, Postscript
Subsequent to ACLU v. Clapper, Congress passed the Freedom Act, which effectively put an end to the telephone metadata program and created an alternative program
See ACLU v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617 (10.29.15)
93
Seizure Must End When Cause Dissipates
U.S. v. Watson, 787 F.3d 101 (5.21.15) (Rakoff)
Officer’s close-up viewing of suspect negated possibility he was robbery suspect and further restraint and search were therefore unlawful
“The rule that the government would have us adopt has the practical effect of permitting police officers to search any black male who is of roughly similar height, age, and skin tone to another black male charged with a crime. Such a rule is unreasonable on its face”
94
Warrant To Search Wrong Apartment
U.S. v. Bershchansky, 788 F.3d 102 (6.5.15) (Chin)
Did agents act in good faith when they searched “Apt. No. 1” with a warrant that authorized the search of “Apt. No. 2”?
95
SENTENCING
96
Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview
United State Sentencing Commission, March 2016
97
Over an eight year follow-up period, almost one-half of federal offenders released in 2005 (49.3%) were rearrested for a new crime or rearrested for a violation of supervision conditions
Almost one-third (31.7%) of the offenders were also reconvicted, and one-quarter (24.6%) of the offenders were reincarcerated over the same study period
98
Of those offenders who recidivated, most did so within the first two years of the eight year follow-up period. The median time to rearrest was 21 months
A federal offender’s criminal history was closely correlated with recidivism rates. Rearrest rates range from 30.2 percent for offenders with zero total criminal history points to 80.1 percent of offenders in the highest Criminal History Category, VI
Offenders released prior to age 21 had the highest rearrest rate, 67.6 percent, while offenders over sixty years old at the time of release had a recidivism rate of 16.0 percent
Rule of LenityU.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832
Defendant is convicted of two 924(c) counts, one requiring mandatory minimum 5 (firearm possessed) and the other mandatory minimum 10 (firearm discharged). Which one is raised to the 25-year minimum as a second 924(c) conviction?
5 10+25 or +25
30 35
99
Aiding and Abetting 924(c) OffenseU.S. v. Prado, 815 F.3d 93 (2.24.16) (Pooler)
• Reversing conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using/carrying gun in furtherance of crime of violence reversed because aiding and abetting instructions violated Rosemond v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014)(Kagan)
• Instruction did not require jury to find that the defendants joined in criminal venture with full knowledge of its scope and had advanced knowledge of the firearm at the time that they could have chosen not to participate in the crime
100
Alan Ellis: Advice on Sentencing Advocacy from Judges Who Sentence
“Many lawyers don’t submit sentencing memoranda and those who do, submit it on the eve of sentencing or submit poor ones. Get me everything well in advance of the hearing. If you’ve got five or six good character letters, put them in the sentencing memorandum, quote from them, and attach them as Exhibit A. Put the rest in a later exhibit”
“Tell me something I don’t know about your client. Don’t regurgitate what’s in the Presentence Report”
“In child pornography cases, I am interested in risk assessments”
101
Sentencing Advocacy, Cont’d
“I welcome sentencing recommendations from defense counsel unless they are ridiculously low. When this happens, the lawyer loses his credibility with me”
“I get annoyed when lawyers cite Booker and 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors as if I didn’t know the law” “Psychological reports are particularly helpful if I know and respect
the expert. If however, the report is based on erroneous information provided by the client, it will carry little if any weight with me” “I appreciate community service, particularly if a defendant
performed it prior to sentencing and there is a good letter from the agency asking that he be allowed to perform community service. It is even more important to me if your client has performed community service even before he knew he was under investigation or charged”
102
Sentencing Advocacy, Cont’d
“If you have a case on point that is factually and legally close to your case wherein another judge in my district has imposed a relatively low sentence, it carries some weight with me, assuming, of course, that I respect that judge” “With character letters, I am looking for good deeds that are
unknown to others. For example, a defendant who has done something for an elderly disabled neighbor such as shoveling ice from her sidewalk without any thought of obtaining anything in return” “I’d rather have 50 character witnesses pay $100 each toward a
defendant’s restitution rather than provide 50 character letters” “I put a lot of stock in collateral civil consequences of your client’s
conviction particularly if he is in a small community and will be shunned by his neighbors. This has a big impact on me”
103
104
Mitigating Effects ofConviction — Ban the Box
Effective October 27, 2015, New York City’s Fair Chance Act prohibits an employer with at least four employees from making an inquiry about an applicant’s pending arrest or criminal conviction record until after a conditional offer of employment has been extended
105
Child Pornography Sentences
ABA Journal August 2015:
“U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio polled a jury in February about what jurors thought a suitable sentence would be for Ryan Collins, a child pornography defendant who was found guilty of having 19 videos and 93 still images on his computer.
The jury recommended, on average, a 14-month sentence. Gwin then sentenced Collins to serve five years … significantly shorter than the government's 20-year recommendation”
106
Graphic Censured
Latest From Judge WeinsteinU.S. v. R.V., 2016WL270257 (1.21.16)
“Judge Gives Man 5 Days for Child Porn, Rails Against Harsh
Sentences”107
“New York Police Are UsingCovert Cellphone Trackers,Civil Liberties Group Says,”by Joseph Goldstein (NYT, 2.11.16)
“Covert cellphone tracking devices, which have proliferated in law enforcement agencies across the nation, have been used by the New York Police Department on at least 1,000 occasions since 2008 in the course of investigating rapes, murders and other crimes, as well as in searches for missing people, according to documents obtained by the New York Civil Liberties Union”
108
Trulincs/Corrlinks
109
Trulincs/Corrlinks
110
TRULINCS/CORRLINKS
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES
FEBRUARY 8, 2016
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to amend their policies with respect to monitoring emails between attorneys and their incarcerated clients to permit attorneys and their incarcerated clients to communicate confidentially via email and thereby maintain the attorney-client privilege
111
NEAR UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION OF AUSA REVIEW OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT EMAILS
• “When it comes to Privilege, You’re Better Off Dead: Protecting Attorney-Client Communications Sent Through Prison Email Systems,” by Christopher J. Milazzo, CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL’Y (2015)
• “Inmates’ E-mails with Their Attorneys: Off-Limits for the Government?” by Amelia H. Barry, CATH. U. L. REV. (Spring 2015)
• “Should the Medium Affect the Message? Legal and Ethical Implications of Prosecutors Reading Inmate-Attorney Email,” by Brandon Parker Ruben, FORDHAM L. REV., March 1, 2015
• “Read, White, and Blue: Prosecutors Reading Inmate Emails and the Attorney-Client Privilege,” 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1119, by Danielle Burkhardt (2015)
112
H. R. 3864
The Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act A BILL
To prevent certain monitoring and interception by Federal authorities of Federal prisoner communications that are subject to attorney-client privilege
Odds of passing the Republican Congress?
113
115