Nov

15

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Yes, Eco-Terrorists Are Real Terrorists

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | November 15, 2009 | 1 Comment

On the night of July 20, 2000, Katherine Christianson, Bryan Rivera, and two companions damaged or destroyed more than 500 trees at a United States Forest Service facility.  Was it a prank?  A dare?  A harvest for the thneed industry? No, Christianson and Rivera were members of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front, and their target was the Forest Service’s genetic-engineering [...]

Nov

7

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: If You Own a Gun, Don’t Steal Cable

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | November 7, 2009 | 1 Comment

In 2005, Kevin Schultz pled guilty to one count of trafficking in counterfeit telecommunications instruments.  His offense involved modifying telecommunications equipment for the purpose of stealing cable.  His sentence? Two years on probation, including a period of home detention.
Two and a half years after his first conviction, federal agents searched Schultz’s home and found a [...]

Oct

31

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Of Hearsay and Bootstraps

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 31, 2009 | 1 Comment

The court staked out no new legal ground in its opinions last week, so I’ll just briefly describe a case that nicely illustrates a classic problem in evidence law.  Based on information provided by a confidential informant, Milwaukee police stopped a Ford Excursion on suspicion of drug activity.  Inside were Marc Cannon (the driver), David Harris (Cannon’s cousin), [...]

Oct

26

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Other Bad Acts and the “Intricately Related” Doctrine

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 26, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Criminal law and procedure are structured around the act requirement: a defendant is prosecuted for performing a specifically identified unlawful act, the criminal trial is designed to determine whether the defendant actually committed that act, and, once the defendant has been convicted and punished, we commonly say that he has paid his debt to society and should be [...]

Oct

21

Federal Sentencing and the Lack of Theory in Criminal Justice

Posted by: Chris Donovan | October 21, 2009 | 1 Comment

Defendants in federal criminal cases often cooperate with the government to get their sentence reduced, especially when facing an extremely high statutory mandatory minimum (it is not uncommon for federal defendants to face mandatory minimums of ten years or higher).  In these cases, to get below the mandatory minimum, the government must file a motion to [...]

Oct

19

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Good Enough for Government Work

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 19, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), certain drug offenders face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment if they have two prior drug felony convictions.  As befits such a draconian statute, special procedural protections have been adopted to ensure that the mandatory minimum does not take defendants by suprise at sentencing.  Thus, 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) requires [...]

Oct

11

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Halfway Houses Back on the Menu

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 11, 2009 | Leave a Comment

If Congress makes an obvious error in drafting a statute, can a court correct that error by effectively adding something to the statute that is not there?  Such was the interesting jurisprudential question the Seventh Circuit confronted last January in United States v. Head, 552 F.3d 640 (2009).  Because of a mix-up with statutory cross-references, the [...]

Oct

4

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Reversing a Liddell Progress on Crack Sentencing

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 4, 2009 | 1 Comment

The Seventh Circuit continues to struggle with the question of what it means for the federal sentencing guidelines to be “advisory.”  In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the then-mandatory guidelines system violated the Sixth Amendment.  The Court corrected the constitutional problem by converting the guidelines from mandatory to advisory.  Then, [...]

Sep

27

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: The Limits of Constructive Possession

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | September 27, 2009 | Leave a Comment

The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case last week, but, fortunately, it was an interesting one.  Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), it is a federal crime for felons to possess a firearm.  Proof of the crime is easy enough when a felon is found actually carrying a gun.  But what if the gun [...]

Sep

19

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: What Can Be Inferred From a Lie?

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | September 19, 2009 | Leave a Comment

When a person is caught in a lie, we normally assume that he is covering something up.  But, if a defendant in a criminal case lies on the witness stand, is it fair to assume that he actually did what he was accused of doing?  Such was the question in United States v. Edwards (No. 08-1124).
Edwards was arrested [...]

Sep

12

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Carrying Unloaded Gun During Bank Robbery Puts Teller’s Life in Jeopardy

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | September 12, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Simple bank robbery carries a maximum sentence of twenty years, but armed bank robbery has an enhanced maximum of twenty-five.  Should a robbery be considered armed, though, when the robber carries an unloaded weapon? 
It turns out that the armed bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), can be satisfied in either of two different ways.  First, a robber qualifies for [...]

Sep

6

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Ink Blots, Allocution, and Error

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | September 6, 2009 | Leave a Comment

The Seventh’s Circuit opinion last week in United States v. Noel (No. 07-2468) reveals a substantial division over how to handle violations of a defendant’s right to address the court at sentencing.  As now codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, the Supreme Court has held that defendants must be personally invited to address the [...]

keep looking »