Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Good Enough for Government Work

seventh-circuit51Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), certain drug offenders face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment if they have two prior drug felony convictions.  As befits such a draconian statute, special procedural protections have been adopted to ensure that the mandatory minimum does not take defendants by suprise at sentencing.  Thus, 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) requires that “before trial . . . the United States attorney [must] . . . serve[] a copy of [an] information on the [defendant] . . . stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.”  But the statute does not specify under what circumstances, if any, a failure to comply with the rule precludes imposition of the mandatory minimum.

By the statute’s literal terms, there can be no doubt that the prosecutor in United States v. Williams (No. 09-1924) failed to comply.  In the § 851 notice he served on Williams, the prosecutor identified only one prior conviction (not the requisite two) and then merely stated, “Further information concerning the defendant’s criminal history can be obtained from the United States Probation Office and specifically the Pretrial Services Report in this matter . . . .”  The Pretrial Services Report, which listed a second drug conviction, was not actually served on the defendant until after trial.  Indeed, it appears that the prosecutor himself had not even received and read the Report before his attempt to incorporate it by reference into the § 851 notice.  This was very sloppy work, and the Seventh Circuit righly chastised both the individual prosecutor and his office (the Northern District of Indiana), which lacked any protocol on how to make § 851 notices.  But sloppiness, even inexcusable sloppiness, is not the same thing as reversible error, and the court (per Judge Posner) affirmed Williams’ life sentence. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Good Enough for Government Work

Justinians Honor Professor Blinka

rsz_danblinkaLast weekend, together with a number of colleagues (including Professor Emeritus James D. Ghiardi and Professors Irene Calboli and Thomas J. Hammer), I attended the Justinian Society’s annual Columbus Day dinner. The society consists primarily of Italian-American lawyers and their families and meets at the Third Ward’s Italian Community Center (which, former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Patrick T. Sheedy, L’48, once remarked, might well have been the “Irish Community Center,” if it had not been for the Lady Elgin disaster in 1860). The evening included the Justinian Society’s honoring our colleague, Professor Daniel D. Blinka, with its annual “Jurist of the Year Award.” The award was presented by Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John J. DiMotto, with citations also presented by Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and current Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Jeffrey A. Kremers. One who does not know Prof. Blinka can get a sense, from this outline of Judge DiMotto’s remarks, of the remarkable way that Prof. Blinka devotes himself to teaching, scholarship, and service (see also this article from a previous alumni magazine). It was a privilege to be at the event, as well as to be Prof. Blinka’s colleague.

Continue ReadingJustinians Honor Professor Blinka

Who Are Our People?

picresized_1255928517_44f5eb317716ee226f9fe3075b925dd1You may have heard that the Del Rio, Texas school district is policing a bridge that crosses the border with Mexico. Children crossing the bridge to attend school in the morning have been given letters seeking verification of their residency and explaining that non-residents will be expelled.

When you live in walking distance from the US-Mexico border, Newsweek points out, “the distinction between the U.S. and Mexico can get blurry—often children will pay visits on the weekend to family members who reside in Mexico and cross the border again Monday morning to go to class.”  Indeed, given recent rates of deportation, it is not at all unlikely that some children have (deported) parents living on one side of the border, while their citizen or permanent resident parents reside in Texas.

The trouble is that some of the students, allegedly, were crossing from Mexico every day to attend class in Texas.   And although public schools in the U.S. are forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause from denying education to children on the basis of their immigration status, schools do, of course, have the legitimate right to verify students’ residency in the district.  As the superintendent of the Del Rio district states, “It’s very simple. If you reside in the district, you can go to school. . . . . Texas has the same residency issues not just with children from Mexico but with children from Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.” (An attorney for the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund asks, “Why isn’t the school district setting up a roadblock on the east side of town to see if students are coming from an adjacent school district?”)

I read about the controversy on a number of different websites, and you can probably imagine the character of many of the comments.  But one particular exchange played into a question that I have become a little obsessed about recently:  who is an “American”?  Is an “American” identified by legal citizenship?  By something more?  By something different from that altogether?

Continue ReadingWho Are Our People?