Seventh Circuit – Page 32 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: “A Total Breakdown of Justice”

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:July 20, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Criminal Law & Process Seventh Circuit

seventh-circuit3

In January 2003, Milwaukee police officers found two guns in the home of the estranged wife of Rashid Salahuddin. Salahuddin himself was arrested shortly afterwards. Now, more than six years later, after many rounds of legal proceedings in state and federal court, Salahuddin still awaits final resolution of criminal charges stemming from the discovery of the guns.

In October 2008, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of Wisconsin summoned the United States Attorney and the Federal Defender to his office for an off-the record conversation about the case, which he characterized as “a total breakdown of justice.” Following this conversation, the government asked Stadtmueller to recuse himself from the case. When Stadtmueller refused, the government initiated proceedings in the Seventh Circuit to compel the district judge’s removal.

The Seventh Circuit has now agreed with the government that Stadtmueller’s statements at the October 2008 meeting required his recusal. In re United States of America (No. 09-2264) (Ripple, J.).

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Silence and Consent

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:July 12, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Federal Criminal Law & Process Seventh Circuit

seventh-circuit2 In 2006, Jarrett James robbed the same bank in Middleton, Wisconsin, on two different occasions, getting away with about $120,000. He was later apprehended, convicted in federal court, and sentenced to 42 years in prison. His appeal centered on the government’s warrantless seizure of a safe from his mother’s home. The safe contained a gun matching a description of the weapon used in one of the robberies. When the government sought to use the gun as evidence against him at trial, James argued unsuccessfully that the gun should be suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In United States v. James (No. 08-3327), the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Flaum) also rejected the Fourth Amendment claim and affirmed James’ conviction. Specifically, the court held that the seizure complied with the Fourth Amendment because James’ mother consented to a police officer taking the safe. The holding is notable because James’ mother never expressly agreed to the seizure; the case thus illustrates circumstances in which Fourth Amendment consent may be inferred from silence. The case also raises interesting questions regarding the mother’s motivations and the underlying parent-child dynamics.

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Another Questionable Statement by a Prosecutor

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:July 3, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Federal Criminal Law & Process Federal Sentencing Seventh Circuit

seventh-circuit On several occasions recently, the Seventh Circuit has been critical of statements made by prosecutors to jurors. (See, for instance, my posts here, here, and here.) Another questionable comment by a prosecutor was the subject of this week’s decision in United States v. Myers (No. 07-3658) (Manion, J.).

Myers was tried on arson charges. During closing arguments, defense counsel highlighted the fact that gasoline was not found by investigators on the floor of the building that Myers allegedly burned down. In response, the prosecutor stated:

[A]ny speculation on the part of [defense counsel] about why or why there wasn’t gasoline can be easily explained by the fact that there were firefighters that were in there that night trying to extinguish that fire with water. Water has a tendency to sweep through and remove all sorts of different things that might have been on the ground. So, ladies and gentlemen, that’s an easy explainable different part of what [defense counsel] was trying to suggest.

On appeal following his conviction, Myers challenged this statement as prosecutorial misconduct.

In addressing Myers’ argument, the Seventh Circuit noted that the government was free to argue “the mere possibility that water could have cleaned or diluted the surface of the carpet.” The problem was that “the government did not couch its argument in such hypothetical terms.”