Community Justice in Wisconsin

I am looking forward to the Law School’s 2009 Public Service Conference, which will address “The Future of Community Justice in Wisconsin.”  Organized by our Assistant Dean for Public Service, Dan Idzikowski, the Conference will take place on Friday, February 20.  Dan has supplied the following post to explain the significance of “community justice” and why it is such an important topic today, particularly for anyone interested in the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system:

Community justice councils, or criminal justice coordinating councils, have been established in several communities across Wisconsin. These councils bring together key local decision-makers to address the coordination, cost, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in their area. Milwaukee County, which has the State’s largest concentration of offenders and criminal justice resources, recently established its own Community Justice Council. Remarkably, this council has brought together leadership across the political spectrum to address crime and corrections in the Milwaukee area. The Marquette Law School Public Service conference is designed to support this collaboration and bring together criminal justice experts to lend their counsel to these efforts. For example, Jeremy Travis, the keynote speaker, is the President of the preeminent John Jay School of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, the former director of the National Institute of Justice at the U.S. Justice Department, and the author of several books and studies on community corrections and reentry issues.

Why is community justice a critical public issue at this time? The past two decades have seen an explosion in Wisconsin’s prison and jail populations. Since 1990 over a dozen new state-operated correctional facilities were brought on line, and existing institutions were expanded. The cost of providing corrections services in Wisconsin grew from $178.4 million in 1990, to $583.4 million in 2000, to $1.2 billion in the current biennium.

Continue ReadingCommunity Justice in Wisconsin

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Cloak and Dagger

The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case last week: United States v. Latchin (Nos. 07-4009 & 08-1085).  Latchin emigrated from Iraq to the United States in the early 1990’s and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1998.  However, documents seized by American forces in Baghdad in 2003 revealed that Latchin was in the employ of the Iraqi government.  The documents indicated that Latchin had been sent to the U.S. as a sleeper agent for the Saddam Hussein regime.  It is not clear whether he ever conducted any covert actitivities once inside the U.S., but, somewhat chillingly, he did manage to obtain a job at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.  In any event, once his connections to Saddam were exposed, Latchin was prosecuted for procuring citizenship illegally by making false statements on his naturalization application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a).  He was convicted and then appealed.

The legal issues on appeal were not nearly so colorful as the underlying facts.  Most significantly, the court had to determine what it means to “procure” citizenship through a false statement. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Cloak and Dagger

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: A Sentencing Remand Based on Mental Disability

The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case last week.  United States v. Williams (No. 07-1573) arose from a series of bank robberies.  Four codefendants were convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment, ranging from 221 months to life.  All four defendants appealed on a variety of different issues, although only one, Clinton Williams, obtained any relief.  Williams was sentenced to 552 months’ imprisonment, notwithstanding evidence that he suffered from significant mental impairments and had become involved in the robberies only as a result of manipulation by his brother.  In light of this mitigating evidence, which was not seriously contested by the government, Williams’ lawyer argued for a sentence at the low end of the 519- to 552-month guidelines range.  However, the sentencing judge did not squarely address this evidence.  Instead, the judge selected a sentence at the top of the range in light of a report by an expert who evaluated Williams and found that he was exaggerating his disability.

The Seventh Circuit (per Judge Williams) vacated and remanded for resentencing.  As the court sensibly observed, there is no logical inconsistency between the evidence that Williams suffered from a mental disability and the observation that he was exaggerating the disability.  Indeed, the very expert who made the obervation estimated Williams’ IQ at 72, which is considered borderline mentally retarded.  The sentencing judge was required to address this and the other evidence of mental disability, as well as the related claim that Williams’ diminished capacity made him susceptible to manipulation by his brother.

Williams thus joins an interesting line of recent Seventh Circuit cases that require sentencing judges to explain why they reject defendants’ arguments for leniency.  I have a forthcoming article about these cases in the Florida State Law Review.  As I explain in the article, there are good procedural justice reasons to favor the Seventh Circuit approach.  It is unfortunate that other circuits have not adopted as robust an explanation requirement.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: A Sentencing Remand Based on Mental Disability
Newer Posts
Older Posts