Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Corporate Criminal Liability, Reconsideration of Suppression Rulings, and More

The Seventh Circuit had four new opinions in criminal cases this week.  The cases addressed the mens rea requirements for corporate criminal liability, procedural aspects of suppression hearings, child pornography sentencing, and conditional guilty pleas.  Taking the cases in that order:

In United States v. L.E. Myers Co. (No. 07-2464), the defendant corporation was convicted of criminal OSHA violations in connection with the electrocution death of one its employees.  The Seventh Circuit (per Judge Sykes) reversed and remanded for a new trial in light of erroneous jury instructions.  The errors related to mens rea issues.  Myers was convicted under a statute that bases liability on the knowing creation of a hazardous condition in knowing violation of an OSHA requirement. 

The problem is that a corporation, as a legal construct, cannot really know anything; the only way a corporation knows something is to the extent the law is willing to impute the knowledge of particular employees to the corporation.  Seventh Circuit precedent indicated that “corporations ‘know’ what their employees who are responsible for an aspect of the business know.”  More specifically, the corporation was said to know what an employee knows if the employee has a duty to report that knowledge to someone higher up in the corporation.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Corporate Criminal Liability, Reconsideration of Suppression Rulings, and More

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: A Lawful Stop, But Just Barely

There is not much to report from the Seventh Circuit front this week.  The court issued only one new opinion in a criminal case, and it was not one that broke any new legal ground.  In United States v. Brewer (No. 08-3257), the defendant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm.  A police officer responding to a call about gunfire in an apartment complex saw Brewer driving away from the complex.  Brewer’s car was stopped on that basis, resulting in discovery of the incriminating weapon.  On appeal, Brewer argued that the gun should have been suppressed because the underlying stop was unconstitutional.  The court (per Judge Posner) agreed that it was at least a close call (“the case is on the line between reasonable suspicion and pure hunch”), but ultimately determined that the “unusual circumstances” of the case met the test for reasonability.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: A Lawful Stop, But Just Barely

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Crook Impersonates Cop, Cop Impersonates Teenager

The Seventh Circuit had only two new opinions in criminal cases last week, with both focusing on sentencing issues.  The first, United States v. Abbas, clarified the harmless error doctrine as it relates to mistaken sentencing calculations.  The second, United States v. Nagel, considered the constitutionality of a ten-year mandatory minimum for enticement of a minor.  By some coincidence, both cases involved impersonation.

In Abbas (No. 07-3866), the defendant was convicted of several crimes, including impersonating an FBI agent.  Falsely claiming the power to make various immigration and criminal problems go away, Abbas tricked several desperate victims into paying him for assistance.  A jury found him guilty of a number of charged offenses, but acquitted him of extortion under color of official right in violation of the Hobbs Act.  Curiously, though, the district court judge sentenced Abbas based on the federal sentencing guideline for extortion under color of official right.  (As I discussed with my Sentencing students just last week, the guidelines permit defendants to be punished for crimes of which they have been acquitted.  Sound strange?  You would not be alone in so thinking!)

On appeal, Abbas argued that “extortion under color of official right” only applies when someone who is actually a public official abuses his authority, and does not cover private citizens who are merely pretending to be public officials.  In effect, Abbas argued that he was really only guilty of fraud, not the more serious offense of extortion.  And, had he been sentenced for fraud, his guidelines range would have been only 15-21 months, instead of the actual 24-30 months.

The Seventh Circuit (per Judge Tinder) agreed . . . but still declined to order a resentencing.  Abbas won the battle, but not the war.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Crook Impersonates Cop, Cop Impersonates Teenager