CP Restitution

The issue of restitution in child-pornography cases has been one we've talked about quite a bit here, at CDAM conferences, and elsewhere.  On June 27, 2013, the Supreme Ct. granted cert in Paroline v. United States, No. 12--8561.


Issue:

"What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2259?"

Briefs were submitted August 19, 2013, but additional briefing is still pending.

Gunshot Residue

United States v. Stafford, No. 12-3238 (6th Cir. June 11, 2013) (for publication).  Panel of Judges Boggs, White, and McCalla (W.D. Tenn.).

Not a "new" case now, but worth noting.

Defendant (D) moved dist ct pre-trial to exclude gunshot-residue evidence, citing rules 702 and 403.  D asked for Daubert hrg.  Dist ct denied the motion. 

On appeal, the defendant made "four arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the gunshot-residue evidence. First, Stafford states that '[gunshot-residue] testing will not determine whether an individual fired a gun, was present when a gun was fired by someone else, or was merely in an environment in which [gunshot residue] existed.'  Stafford claims that because these three possible outcomes summarize the testimony of the Government's expert Robert Lewis—and because Lewis could not testify whether Stafford actually fired the weapon—Lewis 'could not reasonably make any conclusions as to the actual source of the six [gunshot-residue] particles found,' and therefore Lewis's testimony did not meet the standards of Daubert or Rule 702."  Dist ct allowed defense expert to testify regarding the evidence, but the defense did not call him. 

The defendant also argued that gunshot-residue evidence is imprecise.  COA said five particles on D's hand meant the conclusion that the D had residue on his hand was reliable. 

The argument that the particles could have been transferred inadvertantly was likewise unavailing.  COA found the evidence sufficiently reliable.  Defense cross-examined the gov expert on the point.  As to whether the police used proper techniques to gather the evidence, COA found these arguments do not go to reliability.  The arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility.  Cross-examination allowed jury to consider the weight of the evidence.    

Evidence not unfairly prejudicial under rule 403. 

Opinion also addresses ACCA.  Conviction for "aggravated riot" under Ohio law counts for ACCA purposes.  And it touches on 3C1.2, reckless endangerment.  3C1.2 applied: defendant threw loaded gun against a building near a crowded street and nightclub. 

The Crack Plot Thickens

OK, yesterday, United States v. Doe was released.  No case #.  Panel of Judges Keith, Cole, and Rogers.  It's for publication and there's a concurrence by Cole and a dissent by Rogers.  The opinion is good:

 

"For the reasons stated above, we hold that applying the new [FSA crack] minimums in Defendant’s § 1B1.10(b)(1) calculation is the only way to give effect to Congress’s intent to achieve consistency with other Guidelines provisions, especially with regard to which kinds of defendants—cooperative and uncooperative—are eligible for sentence reductions."

 

Defense counsel is likely to be able to surmise why the COA redacted. 

 

The crack issues swirl on. . . .

Shocking! Medical Procedure Shocks the Conscience and Evidence Must Be Excluded

United States v. Booker, No. 11--6311 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2013) (for publication). 

Panel of Judges Gilman, Gibbons, and Rogers.  Judge Gibbons dissented. 

Defendant (D) had hidden crack in his rectum.  Police suspected the D had contraband in his rectum and took him to a doctor.  Without the D's consent, the doctor intubated the D for an hour, rendered him unconscious for 20 to 30 minutes, and paralyzed him for 7 to 8 minutes.  Using a finger, the doctor retrieved the crack and turned it over to the officers.

Even if the doctor was acting entirely for medical reasons, the D was under police control; in these circumstances, the procedure must be seen as attributable to the state for Fourth Amendment purposes.  The procedure, to which the D never consented, "shocks the conscience"; the evidence must be excluded. 

Case started with traffic stop.  Police knew the D from prior encounters.  Drug dog alerted near the D.  During pat down, officer noticed D allegedly "clenched his buttocks."  Officer found rolls of currency, but no drugs.  Search of passenger seat revealed baggies with marijuana and powder residue.  Police arrested D for possessing marijuana despite a an insufficiency of actual marijuana to justify the arrest under Tennessee law. 

Post-arrest, the D's actions made the officers believe he had something secreted in his buttocks.  Strip search conducted.  Officer claimed to see a string protruding.  After an altercation, the officers took the D to a hospital.  Doc told D that doc had to conduct the "procedure" (manually removing any drugs from the rectum) b/c the rectum can absorb drugs quickly, which could create a life-threatening situation.  Naked and cuffed, the D refused to submit.  The doc said he had a "duty" to remove any dangerous substance.  Police allegedly did not direct the doc to do anything. 

D contracted his muscles to preclude the doc's "examination."  Doc ordered injection of a muscle relaxant.  Encounter escalated.  Nurse administered a sedative and paralytic agent intravenously.  D intubated to control breathing.  During the paralysis, the doc removed the rock of crack (> 5grams).  Officer took the rock as evidence. 

Indictment followed.  D argued the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for marijuana possession and that post-arrest treatment was unreasonable under 4th Am: invasion of privacy, dignity, and "liberty to refuse medical treatment."  Dist ct denied motion.  Jury convicted D.

Conclusions:

D’s "Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The officers brought [D] to [the doctor] and stood by while [the doctor] performed a highly intrusive and dehumanizing procedure on [D] without his consent. On the facts of this case, [the doctor's] actions are attributable to the state government and were so unreasonable as to shock the conscience. Because this conduct is sufficiently deliberate and culpable, suppression of the evidence was a proper remedy."

 

* Sufficient nexus to attribute doc's actions to police. 

 

* No solid evidence D consented to "procedure."  At most there could have been consent to an undrugged digital rectal examination, so D could avoid paralysis.  Doc admitted the D did not consent to paralysis. 

 

* No reasonable officer "could believe that, without direction from the police, and over the clear refusal to consent by a conscious and competent patient, a doctor could lawfully go ahead and perform such a procedure. Even if [this doctor] was motivated by benevolent medical ideals, his actions in paralyzing and intubating [the defendant] and performing a rectal examination without his express or implied consent constitute medical battery."

 

* Police used doc as tool to search D's person. 

 

* "Procedure" here unreasonable.  From a legal standpoint, "investigative conduct that would shock

the conscience for purposes of the Due Process Clause is 'unreasonable' for purposes of the Fourth Amendment."

 

* Factors to consider regarding constitutionality of forced surgery: 1) extent of procedure's threat to safety/health of individual; 2) extent of intrusion upon individual's dignitary interests in privacy and bodily integrity; 3) community's interest in fairly and accurately determining guilt or innocence.  "In addition, when there was time to obtain a court order and the police declined to seek one, the suspect’s privacy interests should be given particular solicitude."  These factors, analyzed in the circumstances presented, compelled the conclusion that the 4th Am was violated. 

 

* Exclusion necessary.  No good-faith exception to save evidence from exclusion: "Based on the circumstances of this case, a reasonably well-trained officer and physician would have known that the search was unlawful."

 

Judge Gibbons dissented.

 

She did not believe the doctor was a state actor.

 

She found that "[t]he district court reasonably found that the officers took [the D] to the emergency room because they believed he had a serious health problem.  There is no evidence that the officers had met [the doctor] prior to this incident, knew he would be at the emergency room they took [the D] to at that particular time of day, or knew that he had previously worked with the Sheriff’s Department.  In the absence of a record establishing these facts, the premise that [the doctor] was a mere 'tool' of the officers is unsupportable."

 

 

OK, These Cases Are Just Getting Confusing

OK, X (below) was good, but same day, United States v. Joiner, No. 12--4508 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013) (for publication), comes out.  Judges Boggs, McKeague, and Beckwith (S.D. Ohio).  This latter opinion comes to the opposite conclusion from that expressed in X: the new FSA mand mins do not apply. 

Also on the same day, the COA filed an opinion-correction letter in X, a letter not available to the public.  So the X opinion has been "corrected," but not publically.  And the COA has allowed an extension of time for the gov to seek rehearing in X. 

So we wait. . . .

Lightening Strikes Twice: Blewett Revived!

OK, oral argument in Blewett set for Oct. 9.  In the meantime, we have United States v. X, No. X (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013) (for publication).  Panel of Judges Keith, Cole, and Rogers.  Judge Keith penned the lead opinion.  Judge Cole concurred.  And Judge Rogers dissented. 

 

Essentially, the defendant argued that the statutory mandatory minimums promulgated by the FSA applied to him, making him eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  Court found that the defendant satisfied the first sentence-reduction eligibility requirement because his sentence had been based on the Guidelines.  The plea agreement had said that the parties agreed to recommend that the district court impose a sentence within the guideline range.  During the sentencing hearing, the district court had said that “[t]he parties agree to recommend that the Court impose a sentence within the range determined pursuant to the advisory sentencing guidelines” and that “the appropriate sentencing range under the guidelines according to the sentencing table is 130 to 162 months.”  The district court started with the drug-quantity table in 2D1.1.  The court then relied on 3E1.1 and 5K1.1, cited in the plea agreement, to calculate the defendant’s advisory range as 130 to 162 months; the district court sentenced the defendant to 130 months.  This imposition of sentence pursuant to the plea agreement and derived from an advisory range under the Guidelines means the sentence was based on an advisory range.

 

COA then looked to 5G1.1 to consider impact of mandatory minimum.  The COA found that the section was silent as to which mandatory minimums to apply, and that the Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue.  

 

The court noted that under the gov's interpretation, defendants whose original advisory ranges were slightly above the old statutory floor, but who did not receive substantial-assistance downward departures, would be eligible for sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2).  But defendants whose original ranges were at the statutory floor, who rendered substantial assistance, would not be eligible for reductions.  "Such perverse results are clearly inconcsistent with other Guidelines provisions."  Here, plugging the new mandatory minimums  and amended guidelines into the defendant's calculations would yield a sentence of 70 months instead of 130.  The court found that applying the new minimums "is the only way to give effect to Congress's intent to achieve consistency with other Guidelines provisions, especially with regard to which kinds of defendants---cooperative and uncooperative---are eligible for sentence reductions." 

The COA distinguishes Carradine and Dorsey.  These two cases "stand for the proposition that defendants who were sentenced after August 3, 2010, [the FSA's effective date] were entitled to be sentenced under the new FSA minimums at their original sentencing hearings."  The COA here admonishes that 3582(c)(2) hearings are not plenary proceedings like the latter original sentencing hearings.  Carradine and Dorsey did not address the application of mandatory minimums in the 3582(c)(2) context. 

A reduction here would be consistent with Guidelines policy statements.  The applicable guideline range here "automatically incorporates the statutory minimums in the cocaine base sentencing statutes . . . via 1B1.1(a)(8), which interlocks with 5G1.1---the section of the Guidelines that incorporates the statutory minimums."  As the new minimums are the applicable minimums in the 1B1.10(b)(1) calculation, Amendment 750 lowers the applicable guideline range.  So a sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).  The statements in application note 1(a)(A) to 1B1.10 do not change this reasoning. 

The COA notes that "[e]ach time the Supreme Court has heard cases involving the FSA, it has expanded the class of defendants who are entitled to or eligible for the benefits of lowered penalties under the FSA." 

Judge Cole concurred:

He would resolve the case on narrower grounds.  The sentence here was based on a subsequently lowered guideline range, rather than a mandatory minimum.  But Judge Cole would hang his hat on the substantial assistance.  The 5K "effectively 'waived' the mandatory minimum and permitted the district court to impose a sentence based on [the] otherwise-applicable guideline range."  This approach "obviates the need to delve any further into the controversy surrounding the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act."  Judge Cole would wait for the en banc Blewett proceedings before saying more. . . . 

Judge Rodgers dissented:

Notes that Blewett could be resolved with this opinion if the en banc court were to accept it.  Believes that at this time the panel is bound by Hammond.  Does not see substantial assistance as getting around this block. 

Strange Bedfellows

OK, I apologize for the long break in posts.  But I know a lot of you are following the mandatory-minimum discussions rumbling around now.  Here is a press release on the American Correctional Association's support of reform.  Wow.  These are correctional officers! 

Says a lot. 

http://www.famm.org/newsandinformation/PressReleases/ACAEndorsesMandatoryMinimumSentencingReform.aspx