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

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection and Improper Closing Arguments

The Seventh Circuit had three new opinions in criminal cases last week.  The most interesting was United States v. McMath (No. 08-2316), which featured the Seventh Circuit’s most extended discussion to date of Snyder v. Louisana, 128 S. Ct. 1203 (2008).  In my view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder represented a real break-through in the Court’s on-again/off-again efforts to eliminate racial bias from the jury-selection process.  In McMath (which was, coincidentally, decided on the exact one-year anniversary of Snyder), the Seventh Circuit seemed to recognize the significance of Snyder and awarded the defendant a remand for further consideration of the racial bias issue in the district court.  McMath also included an interesting discussion of questionable closing arguments made by the prosecutor.

McMath’s jury-selection claim centered on alleged racial bias in the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes.  In Batson v. Kentucky, of course, the Supreme Court made clear that prosecutors are prohibited from removing potential jurors from a case on account of their race.  Here are the relevant facts from McMath:

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection and Improper Closing Arguments

Law Professor Amicus Brief Filed in 7th Circuit ERISA Case

Today, as part of a group of law professors around the country with interests in the mutual funds and employee benefits area, I helped to draft and signed on to an amicus brief which asked for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant rehearing en banc in the ERISA case of Hecker v. Deere & Company.  The case concerns an issue of tremendous importance for American workers’ retirements: the appropriate scope of a fiduciary duty under ERISA in the context of personal savings and mutual fund fees.

In Hecker, a 7th Circuit panel affirmed the decision of the district court of the Western District of Wisconsin, which found a group of employee-plaintiffs did not state a claim for relief under ERISA when their employer, Deere, allegedly did not provide a sufficient menu of mutual fund options for their 401(k) retirement plan accounts.  Although the brief argued in part that the panel inappropriately adopted a remarkably narrow interpretation of fiduciary duty that relied crucially upon an assumption that the underlying market for mutual funds is vibrant and competitive, my part of the brief involved the proper fiduciary standard for employers who run 401(k) accounts under so-called 404(c) plans.

Continue ReadingLaw Professor Amicus Brief Filed in 7th Circuit ERISA Case