Seventh Circuit Week in Review: More on the Elusive Meaning of “Crack”

With just two new opinions, there was not much criminal action in the Seventh Circuit last week.  One of the two, United States v. Dunson (No. 08-1691), was a very brief per curiam holding that the Indiana crime of fleeing a police officer in a vehicle is a “crime of violence” for purposes of applying § 2K2.1(a)(2) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The second, and much meatier, opinion was United States v. Bryant (No. 07-3608), in which the court (per Judge Ripple) affirmed the defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking, but nonetheless remanded for resentencing.  A central issue in the case was whether the defendant was dealing crack cocaine, as opposed to some other form of cocaine that would result in a lesser sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelnes.  Coincidentally, the court dealt with the same issue the previous week in United States v. Stephenson, which I blogged about here.  In both cases, the court underscored that “crack” is not defined by some particular chemical composition, but by the understanding of drug users and sellers — in a sense, “crack” is what the market calls “crack.” 

Bryant is interesting for the way that it shines a light on the fallibility of crime labs. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: More on the Elusive Meaning of “Crack”

Welcome to March (and Spring?)

Many thanks to our wonderful featured bloggers for February: Alison Julien, Chuck Clausen, and Jessica Franklin!  The March Faculty Blogger is Andrea Schneider.  The Alum Blogger is Mike Zimmer ’67, who is now a law professor at Loyola-Chicago.  And the Student Blogger is 3L Chris King.  The Question of the Month is: “What law review article has had the greatest influence on the way that you write or teach about the law?”

Continue ReadingWelcome to March (and Spring?)

Favorite Wisconsin Cases to Teach: State v. Stewart

Kodanko waits alone for the bus in a three-sided plexiglass bus shelter in downtown Milwaukee.  Three men approach.  Stewart and Moore enter the bus shelter, while their companion, Levy, remains outside.  They block Kodanko’s exit from the shelter.  Stewart says to Kodanko, “Give us some change, man.”  When Kodanko refuses, Stewart repeats his request three or four time in an increasingly loud voice.  Stewart then begins to reach into his coat.  Moore says, “Put that gun away.”  At the same time, Levy enters the shelter and tells his companions, “Let’s go.”  The three of them enter a restaurant across the street.  Moore returns a few minutes later to make small talk with Kodanko.  In due course, the police arrest Stewart for attempted robbery.  But was it really a robbery attempt, or just aggressive panhandling?

This is the subject of State v. Stewart, 420 N.W.2d 44 (Wis. 1988), which I teach in my Criminal Law course.  The case resonates with me on several different levels.

Continue ReadingFavorite Wisconsin Cases to Teach: State v. Stewart