Author Archive | Peggy Cross-Goldenberg

Monday, December 10th, 2018

Misleading Description of Circumstances Under Which Defendant Made Statement Leads to New Trial

In United States v. Vinas, the Second Circuit vacated a conviction and remanded for a new trial based on the government’s Rule 16 discovery violation.

 In Vinas, a courier case, the government’s Rule 16 notice disclosed that Vinas had made a self-incriminating statement during the “initial inspection” of his luggage, i.e., in a public area of the terminal at JFK Airport. Because the Circuit has held that routine questioning in the public area of an international terminal is non-custodial, the defense did not move to suppress, even though the statement was un-Mirandized. At trial, however, it emerged that the Rule 16 notice was not accurate (or, at least, ambiguous). Vinas had in fact made the statement only after four armed CBP officers took his passport and escorted him to a private search room, arguably a custodial setting. Defense counsel objected that the misleading disclosure caused him to forgo


Posted By
Categories: discovery, Miranda

Continue Reading

Appeal Waiver in Plea Agreement Invalid Without Consideration from Government

In United States v. Lutchman, the Second Circuit held a waiver of appeal contained in a plea agreement was invalid because it was not supported by consideration from the government.  Mr. Lutchman pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to a plea agreement that calculated an advisory guidelines range at the statutory maximum and contained an appeal waiver for any sentence at or below the statutory maximum.  Yet he “received no benefit from his plea beyond what he would have gotten by pleading guilty without an agreement.”  The government’s agreement not to oppose the two-level reduction under the guidelines for acceptance of responsibility and to move for the one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) for Lutchman’s timely notification of his intention to plead guilty did not constitute consideration for the appeal waiver because the combined three-level reduction was available to …


Posted By
Categories: material support statute, waiver

Continue Reading
Tuesday, December 4th, 2018

Ninth Circuit Holds Statute Barring “Encouraging and Inducing an Alien” Abridges Constitutionally-Protected Speech

Something to look out for on the immigration front:

The Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) which prohibits “encouraging and inducing an alien to remain in the United States” abridges constitutionally-protected speech. Because “[a]t the very least, it is clear that the statute potentially criminalizes the simple words . . . “I encourage you to stay here,” the statute “criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected expression” and therefore is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The case is United States v. Sineneng-Smith, and you can access the opinion here.…

Posted by
Categories: immigration

Posted By
Categories: immigration

Continue Reading
Monday, September 10th, 2018

Second Circuit decides Barrett

On the heels of its Pereira-Gomez decision on Friday, the Second Circuit issued a new opinion in United States v. Barrett, which is available here.

In Barrett, the Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague because “factfinding as to the violent nature of the predicate offense and the risk of physical force in its commission can be made by the trial jury in deciding the defendant’s guilt, thus avoiding both the Sixth Amendment and due process vagueness concerns at issue in Dimaya and Johnson.”  The Court held that the fact that Barrett’s jury did not make a finding regarding force was harmless error in light of the specific facts of his case.  The Circuit further held that a Hobbs Act Robbery conspiracy is a crime of violence because the object of the conspiracy, the Hobbs Act Robbery, is a crime of violence.  “[T]his …


Posted By
Categories: 924(c), conspiracy, crime of violence, Johnson

Continue Reading
Friday, August 17th, 2018

Judge Carter Issues Lengthy Opinion Justifying Bail Grant

If you’re looking for some inspiring beach reading this weekend, look no further than this opinion in United States v. Paulino. On appeal by the government, S.D.N.Y. Judge Andrew Carter upheld the Magistrate’s decision to set bail in Mr. Paulino’s case. The government appealed to the Second Circuit, which remanded with instructions for Judge Carter to elaborate his rationale for granting bail. Today, he issued this memorandum opinion discussing the history of bail in American courts; the presumptions, burdens and standards of proof that apply to bail decisions; and how imposing conditions of release can mitigate the risk of flight and danger to the community.

NB: The Federal Defenders represents Mr. Paulino.…


Posted By
Categories: bail, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, June 22nd, 2018

Circuit Upholds Warrantless Search of Car, Remands for Resentencings to Consider Downward Departures and Concurrent Sentences

In United States v. Jones, the Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of a car parked in the common parking lot of a multi-family building.  The Circuit held Jones had no legitimate expectation of privacy in his car because it was parked in a driveway shared by tenants of two multi-family homes, not within the curtilage of his private home, and he did not have exclusive control over the driveway.  Op. at 13-15.

In United States v. Sawyer, the Circuit remanded the case for the second time, this time for resentencing in front of a new district judge.  The Circuit previously had vacated as substantively unreasonable a 360-month sentence for the offenses of producing and receiving child pornography.  In that opinion, the Circuit held that the “30-year sentence would have been appropriate for ‘extreme and heinous criminal behavior’ and the …


Posted By
Categories: automobile exception, child pornography, concurrent, curtilage

Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Police Generally Need Warrant for Historical Cell-Site Information

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court today held that the government’s acquisition of historical cell-site location information constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and the government generally will be required to obtain a warrant to acquire that information.  The so-called third-party doctrine does not permit the government to obtain cell-site location information as “business records” because “[t]here is a world of difference between the limited types of personal information [permissibly obtained under the third-party doctrine] and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers.”

 

You can read SCOTUSblog’s analysis of the case here.

 …


Posted By
Categories: cell phone location information

Continue Reading

SDNY Judge Issues Guidelines Regarding Use of 302 Forms in Criminal Trials

An FYI for counsel who will be cross-examining witnesses in SDNY Judge Katherine B. Forrest’s Courtroom.  Judge Forrest has issued “Guidelines Regarding Appropriate Use of 302 Forms in Criminal Trials.”  You can read the Guidelines here and may need to plan ahead where you need to use a 302 to complete the impeachment of a witness.

In the eight-page document, the Court addresses what it sees as the “most common issues related to the proper use of 302s.”  After discussing how the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the use of 302s, the Court concludes: “It is clear that statements included in 302s are therefore classic hearsay without — in and of themselves — requisite indicia of reliability.”  Because the Court views mention that the witness’s statements contained in the 302 were written down by an FBI agent as “giving [the statement] an indicia of reliability,” it will preclude counsel …


Posted By
Categories: 3500 Material, cross-examination, evidence, impeachment

Continue Reading
Friday, June 8th, 2018

Seventh Circuit Holds that Beckles Does Not Apply to Pre-Booker Sentences

More news out of the Midwest:  In United States v. Cross, the Seventh Circuit held that Beckles v. United States applies only to post-Booker cases in which the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory.  In pre-Booker cases in which the Guidelines were mandatory, the residual clause of the career-offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States.…


Posted By
Categories: career offender, Johnson

Continue Reading

Refusal to Follow the Actual (and Ice) Methamphetamine Guideline Based on Policy Disagreement

Two judges in the Northern District of Iowa recently have announced that they disagree with on policy grounds, and no longer will follow, the marijuana equivalency called for in the Sentencing Guidelines when imposing sentences in cases involving actual methamphetamine and ice.

The Sentencing Guidelines distinguish between a methamphetamine mixture and actual/pure methamphetamine or ice, which it defines as methamphetamine that is at least 80% pure, treating actual/pure methamphetamine or ice ten times more harshly than a mixture of marijuana.  One gram of actual (pure) methamphetamine or ice has a marijuana equivalency of 20 kilograms whereas one gram of a methamphetamine mixture has an equivalency of 2 kilograms.  The ratio has its roots in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1).  Comment 27(c) to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 offers the only explanation of the Commission’s view on the relevance of purity to the appropriate sentence, asserting that purity “is probative of the defendant’s role or …


Posted By
Categories: drug purity, marijuana equivalency, Methamphetamine

Continue Reading
Wednesday, May 9th, 2018

Second Circuit Issues Amended Ruling in Hill

Today the Second Circuit issued an amended opinion in United States v. Hill, holding that Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) (924(c)’s so-called “force clause”).

The good news about the decision is that it omits the portion of the earlier-issued opinion that upheld against a vagueness challenge 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) (924(c)’s so-called “residual clause” or “risk of force clause”).  This was a hoped-for development in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Sessions v. Dimaya.

This means there is no longer any holding from the Second Circuit that 924(c)’s residual clause survived Johnson. This should mean district courts will see a green light to find that 924(c)’s residual clause, and the identical clause in the Bail Reform Act, are void.

The bad news is the portion of the original holding that remains intact, that Hobbs Act robbery is a …


Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Hobbs Act, Johnson

Continue Reading