Archive | Uncategorized

United States v. Holguin, Docket No. 04-5277-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2006) (Winter, Straub, Raggi): In this opinion, the Circuit finally and unsurprisingly slams the door on Booker-based challenges to the district court’s determination of a defendant’s eligibility for the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Here, Holguin argued inter alia that in light of Booker, the fact that the district court determined that he was an organizer or leader within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 did not disqualify him from safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4) because this provision itself “should be deemed advisory after Booker because the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory nature of the Guidelines” in its entirety. Op. 3. The Circuit rejected this argument, concluding that neither Booker nor the Apprendi-Blakely line of cases was implicated because “judicial fact-finding as to whether a defendant was a supervisor or …

United States v. Ford, Docket No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): “[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federal criminal statute.” Op. 14. Hallelujah — we just wish this maxim were applied more frequently in non-white collar cases.

In this case, the Circuit vacates Ford’s conviction for accepting a bribe under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) — punishing those who “corruptly . . . accept . . . anything of value . . . intending to be influenced . . . .” in the performance of their duties — because the trial court’s instructions to the jury failed to properly convey the intent requirement of the statute, at least as it applies to recipients of a bribe. Specifically, the instructions “appear to have told the jury that [§ 666’s] intent requirement was fully satisfied by the recipient’s …

Messiah v. Duncan, Docket No. 04-5311-pr (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (Cabranes and Sack) (Jacobs, concurrence): The Circuit rejects a § 2254 petitioner’s Batson challenge to his state murder conviction. Petitioner Messiah claimed principally that the trial judge failed to rule on his Batson challenge with respect to the prosecutor’s strike of an African-American juror named Woodbury. The record showed that at the first round of jury selection, the prosecution used peremptories against 5 panelists, including Woodbury. Defense counsel objected, claiming that the striking of Woodbury was racially motivated. The court then asked the prosecutor to explain why he struck Woodbury, and he responded that he removed Woodbury because he was a social worker and had a wife who worked for a law firm. After a brief exchange between defense counsel and the court on a somewhat unrelated topic, the court announced, “That’s five, five by the People,” …

United States v. Sheikh, Docket No. 05-1747-cr (2d Cir. Amended Jan. 13, 2006) (Sotomayor, Meskill, Kaplan (by desig’n)): When the Court issued the original version of this decision last week, we pointed out that it included dicta seemingly undercutting the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002). (Click here for our earlier discussion). As the Court originally stated, “So long as the facts found by the district court do not trigger a mandatory minimum sentence authorized by the verdict or increase the sentence beyond the statutory maximum authorized by the verdict, the district court does not violate a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on facts not alleged in the indictment.” Op. at 4.

Alas, that anti-Harris dicta is no more. The Court today amends its decision to clarify that when it refered to “a …

United States v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, Docket Nos. 04-3953(L) (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2005): Yet another reminder of the White Album’s timelessness:

Don’t forget me martha my dear
Hold your head up you silly girl look what you’ve done
When you find yourself in the thick of it
Help yourself to a bit of what is all around you
Silly girl.

Martha Stewart’s troubles began when she helped herself to a bit too much information regarding Sam Waksal’s sale of his ImClone stock. And when she found herself in the thick of an SEC investigation into the questionable timing of her sale of that stock, she (allegedly) concocted a ridiculous story instead of just telling the truth. We all know the end result.

The Circuit today affirms her conviction in a 74-page opinion rejecting each argument raised by Stewart and co-defendant Peter Bacanovic. Having labored through the …

Our colleague Steve Sady over at the Ninth Circuit Blog has once again written a great resource for criminal defense lawyers — this time concerning immigration-related issues that arise in criminal cases. (Click here for Steve’s discussion). Steve focuses in particular on how to use the Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal to fight the Government’s aggressive and continuing effort to expand the definition of “aggravated felony.” Steve also provides information on and links to immigration-law resources for the criminal defense lawyer.

For those who finds immigration law to be a realm of poorly drafted statutes, incoherent regulations, and unprincipled decisions, Steve’s discussion is well worth a look.…

United States v. Sheikh, Docket No. 05-1747-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2006) (Meskill, Sotomayor, Kaplan (by desig’n)): We were puzzled by why the Court decided to publish this very short opinion, in which the Court rejects the defendant’s claim that “the district court violated his [Fifth and Sixth Amendment] rights by enhancing his sentence on the basis of a fact — the loss amount — not alleged in the indictment,” even where the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction. Our puzzlement stems both from the fact that this argument was essentially rejected in Booker, and the fact that the Court simultaneously issued an unpublished summary order rejecting other arguments raised by Sheikh — thus evidencing a conscious choice to publish this decision on a well-settled issue.

Readers, if there are any, are invited to offer speculations as to the Court’s motive. …

Monroe v. Kuhlman, Docket No. 03-3703 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2006) (Winter, Feinberg, Straub): This is somewhat of a rare bird: The Circuit concludes that the New York Court of Appeals improperly applied the state’s own contemporaneous objection rule and thus that its finding of a procedural default on direct appeal was “inadequate” to bar federal habeas review of the same question. Monroe claimed that his right to be present at all critical stages of the trial, as well as his right to “judicial supervision” of the trial, were violated when the state trial judge allowed the jury to view previously admitted evidence outside the presence of the judge and the parties during adjournments of the trial. Unfortunately, trial counsel did not object to the procedure. These claims were rejected on direct appeal. The N.Y. Court of Appeals found that (1) Monroe’s right to be present was not …

Sapia v. United States, Docket No. 03-2087 (2d Cir. Dec. 28, 2005) (Winter, Straub, Lay (by desig’n)): Section 851 of Title 21 provides that the enhanced penalties set forth in § 841(b) for defendants who commit a drug offense after sustaining prior drug convictions are triggered only if the Government files, before trial or the entry of a guilty plea, an information “stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.” In this decision, the Court holds that the prior felony information requirement is not jurisdictional, and thus that an argument, raised in a collateral attack, that the sentencing court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence in the absence of a § 851 information is subject to procedural default analysis. And because Sapia could not satisfy the cause-and-prejudice inquiry, the Court dismisses his § 2255 petition.

The essential facts are simple. Sapia was indicted for conspiring to …