Seventh Circuit Week in Review, Part II: Illinois Corruption, Prior Acts Evidence, 911 Calls, and 30 Rock

In my earlier “Week in Review” post, I discussed the Seventh Circuit’s new sentencing decisions.  This post rounds out my review of the Seventh Circuit’s busy week.

In United States v. Turner (No. 07-1062), a jury convicted the defendant of wire fraud and making false statements to the FBI.  Turner was a supervisor in the Illinois Secretary of State’s office.  In that position, he assisted three janitors in a scheme to obtain compensation for work they did not perform.  (Insert your favorite joke about corruption in Illinois state government here.)  On appeal, Turner argued there was no evidence to establish that the fraud was committed by use of the wires.  However, the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Sykes) held it was enough that the janitors’ fraudulently inflated paychecks were direct-deposited in their accounts.  Turner also argued that, since he himself derived no benefit from the fraud, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of “honest services” fraud.  However, the court indicated that the benefit received by the janitors would suffice, and, in any event, “honest services” was only one of two alternative wire fraud theories submitted to the jury.  Finally, Turner argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the false statements conviction because, although he lied to FBI investigators, the investigators were not fooled by what he said.  Again, the court disagreed:

A false statement neen not actually influence the agents to whom it is made in order to satisfy the materiality requirement for this offense; it need only have the possibility of influencing a reasonable agent under normal circumstances.

Turner’s convictions were thus affirmed in all respects.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review, Part II: Illinois Corruption, Prior Acts Evidence, 911 Calls, and 30 Rock

Favorite Law Movies: A Civil Action

There are many great law-related movies, but the one that has special resonance for me is A Civil Action (1997).  In fact, back when I taught Civil Procedure, I required students to watch the film, and we had some really terrific class discussions about it.  The plot centers on a lawsuit brought by a group of residents of Woburn, Massachusetts, against several industrial polluters.  At the heart of the film is the confrontation between an up-and-coming plaintiffs’ lawyer played by John Travolta and a grizzled, big-firm defense lawyer played by Robert Duvall.  The Duvall character seems an avatar of the amoral corporate lawyer, whereas the moral status of the Travolta character seems more uncertain and may evolve over the course of the movie.

Both actors deliver deeply engaging performances, as do several other top-flight character actors in supporting roles.  (James Gandolfini is especially good as a blue-collar employee of one of the defendants who must decide whether or not to cooperate with the plaintiffs’ lawyer; he doesn’t have many lines, but he exudes this barely subdued rage, looking as if he would like nothing more than to punch somebody out, if only he could decide at whom he should really be angry.) 

But, in addition to great acting and a compelling story, there are lots of other reasons this movie really works for me. 

Continue ReadingFavorite Law Movies: A Civil Action

Seventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Sentencing Issues

The Seventh Circuit had a busy week, with seven new opinions in criminal cases.  In this post, I will discuss just the three cases that focused on sentencing issues; a later post will cover the other cases.

In United States v. Alldredge (No. 08-2076), the court considered the reach of §2B5.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which increases sentence length in counterfeiting cases if “any part of the offense was committed outside the United States.”  In return for forging forty checks for a Nigerian, Alldredge received $3,000 in fake currency from Canada.  She had not expected to receive fake currency, but decided to spend it anyway, resulting in her conviction for distributing counterfeit currency.  The district court increased her sentence based on the international dimension of the case.  However, as the Seventh Circuit (per Chief Judge Easterbrook) pointed out, none of Alldredge’s conduct occurred outside the United States, and the Guidelines generally make a defendant responsible only for the foreseeable conduct of others.  She did not anticipate that her international connections would provide her with counterfeit currency; indeed, she was in a sense a victim of their crime.  Bearing in mind that Alldredge was only convicted of distributing counterfeit currency (and not check forgery), no part of her offense was committed outside the United States, entitling her to a remand and resentencing.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Sentencing Issues