Federal Criminal Lawyer Blog

In any criminal case, whether in Federal Court or one of the State Court systems, prosecutors are supposed to "play fair". The Fifth Amendment to our dear Old Constitution enshrines this fairness obligation in what we lawyers call the "Due Process Clause." Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the day in 1963 when the United State Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling of Brady v. Maryland. That was the case in which, for the first time, the Supreme Court said that the Due Process Clause mandates that a prosecutor play fair by telling the defense about any exculpatory evidence, or evidence that tends to show that the defendant was not guilty. However, as basic as this obligation seems to be, I often wonder if our clients are that much better off than 50 years ago.

Like defendants in many famous Supreme Court cases, John Brady was no saint. On June 27, 1958, he and Donald Boblit robbed and killed a man named William Brooks. Boblit quickly confessed that he had strangled Brooks to death, and that he acted alone. However, the prosecutors handling the case against John Brady never informed the defense attorneys about this confession and never turned over the transcript of Boblit's remarks.

Both Boblit and Brady were convicted and sentenced to death. Only after the trial did Brady's lawyers discover that prosecutors had a confession from Boblit that helped exonerate Brady. The attorneys found out by reading a transcript of Boblit's trial. So, Brady's attorneys sensibly asked for a new trial. The trial judge refused. Next, the Maryland Court of Appeals concluded that the suppression of the confession violated Brady's Due Process rights, but said he was only entitled to a new sentencing trial. Because his lawyers believed the whole trial had been tainted, they asked the United States Supreme Court to look into the matter.

The justices used Brady's case to memorialize a constitutional rule that imposed on prosecutors the affirmative duty to share with criminal defendants evidence that by its very definition would undermine the prosecution's case. The motives behind the suppression of the evidence didn't matter. However, in later years the Supreme Court greatly reduced the impact of this landmark ruling, by holding that an unfair prosecutor who hides exculpatory evidence will not cause a new trial unless that hidden evidence was "material". Evidence is material, only when "there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." This was a big victory for prosecutors and an even bigger defeat for aggrieved defendants.

As a young lawyer, I was kind of shocked about how the Brady rule is played out in a real case. I would always ask the Judge to make the prosecutor turn over the "Brady materials." The prosecutor would routinely roll his or her eyes, and intone that the government was well aware of its obligations, and that was it. The judge never made any inquiries, and I was left with the distinct impression that the Brady rule is merely an example of the fox guarding the henhouse. Why would a prosecutor ever turn over evidence that helps the Defendant if the prosecutor truly believes the Defendant is guilty? Furthermore, even if a prosecutor is not trying to hide anything, it seems ridiculous to ask that same prosecutor to figure out if a piece of evidence is potentially exculpatory, in that the prosecutor does not really know where the defense is going. Federal court is the worst of all, in that the discovery rules do not make a prosecutor turn over very much at all, and so no one really knows if there is some truly good defense evidence lurking in the files of one of the investigators.

Not only does the Brady rule seem to fall flat in real cases, it seems that when a prosecutor is caught withholding evidence, very little is done. Prosecutors who violate the obligation to disclose favorable evidence are rarely sanctioned by courts, and almost never by disciplinary bodies. I remember one case where I caught the prosecutor red-handed. Fortunately, my client was acquitted. When I complained about the prosecutor's violation, his boss shrugged, saying "Why does it matter, you walked your man didn't you?" That attitude seems to still prevail 50 years after the Brady decision was issued. Things might be better if all prosecutors would simply use an "open file" discovery system, but for some reason, they often are reluctant to do so. That is truly bizarre, since when there is a fight over money, each side has to make full disclosure to the other, but when freedom (or even the death sentence) is at issue, one side gets to hide the ball and only has to turn over exculpatory evidence when it is "material." Have we really improved since 1963?

Here in Atlanta, the local federal Court of Appeals just affirmed a conviction in a mail fraud and bribery white collar case out of Jacksonville, Florida. The case is but the latest saga in the long-running debate over the contours of "honest services fraud", the species of fraud so often used by federal prosecutors when they go after what they perceive to be "local corruption." In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that the Defendant's convictions should be affirmed, even though one of the two judges in the majority had real problems upholding the lower court's rulings. Judge Hill issued a blistering dissent, perhaps foreshadowing a more full review by the entire court. The case is US. v. Nelson, and can be found here.

Mr. Nelson was the chairman of the board of Jaxport, the entity that basically oversaw the port authority in Jacksonville. The board members worked part-time, were not paid, and were prohibited from voting on any matter in which they had a financial interest.

Mr. Nelson lobbied on behalf of a company named SSI, received payments from SSI, and therefore did not vote on any SSI-related matters that came before the JaxPort board. He did urge staff members to help SSI on certain payment issues, but as noted by the dissent, "The evidence was that no economic harm befell JaxPort as the result of Nelson’s lobbying for SSI". At one point he got an opinion from the City's chief legal officer that he would have no problems in continuing his lobbying on behalf of SSI so long as he did not vote on anything that affected that company. His biggest problem was that he and SSI concealed the payments he received, the money was routed through a couple of other intermediary companies before it got to Nelson. The FBI got wind of the relationship between Nelson and SSI, they tapped their phones, and one morning agents showed up at Mr. Nelson's house for a "talk." He told them that once they arrived on his doorstep he then knew the payments were wrong, but did not say he previously was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct.

Despite all this, the feds indicted Mr. Nelson for "honest services" mail fraud and federal services bribery. Many of us know the history of the honest services theory, a method of criminalizing what is basically the violation of a fiduciary duty. In the famous Skilling case, the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the honest services theory to "core" cases involving bribery and kickbacks, and seemed to hold that concealing one's financial relationship is not the sort of conduct which can be prosecuted under these laws.

The majority in Nelson used a round-about way of deciding that he was guilty. Although he could lobby on behalf of SSI, and although he did abstain from voting on SSI business, the concealment of his payments from SSI meant that he had the intention to accept a bribe. Judge Hill's dissent seems to be far more on point: "[C]oncealment alone is legally insufficient to prove Nelson had corrupt intent to be bribed. If Nelson had no duty to disclose his financial relationship with SSI, as Skilling says, and the payments were permitted, as he was told, then the jury was not permitted to infer a corrupt intent to be bribed by his concealment. The government’s theory was that – although concealment is not a crime – it was evidence of corrupt intent and this mens rea turned lawful lobbying into unlawful bribery. I disagree. Bribery requires a corrupt agreement to perform an unlawful official act – an actus reus. In this case, Nelson agreed to perform a lawful act. The lobbying was permitted. An agreement to perform a lawful act is called a contract, not bribery."

The case also involved some serious problems with the jury instructions. Again, however, the trial lawyers failed to object, letting the appellate court use the "plain error" standard way of gutting the argument. As I have noted many times before, none of us is perfect, as trial lawyers we all make mistakes, but we also all need to remember to try and object as often as possible to any potential problem with jury instructions.

In an amazing opinion issued in Atlanta by the Eleventh Circuit, the court reversed a series of federal criminal convictions because the indictment did not even charge a crime. And, they did so even though none of the lawyers for either side bothered to address whether the indictment properly charged a federal criminal offense! The whole issue came down to whether the Defendant's actions were "contrary to law", and because they were not, the court of appeals reversed all their convictions.

The Defendants and their company imported dairy products into the U.S. from Central America. Apparently, several of their imported products were contaminated with E. Coli and salmonella.

Some of the post-9/11 laws beefed up the statutes that criminalize the unlawful importing of goods into the United States. One of those laws is 18 U.S.C. § 545. The unlawful importation charges in the indictment here were based on violations of a Customs regulation, alleging the failure to deliver, export, and destroy with FDA supervision certain imported goods found to be adulterated. See 19 C.F.R. § 141.113(c). Failure to comply with this regulation typically gives rise to a civil remedy of liquidated damages in the amount of three times the value of the goods.

The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §545, says it is a crime to import items if doing so is "contrary to law". To summarize what is a quite lengthy decision, the Court of Appeals decided that the regulation is not the kind of "law" referred to in this particular criminal statute.

To me there are two notable items from this decision. First, the Court of Appeals itself brought up the whole issue of whether the indictment even charges a crime. The judges told the lawyers for both sides to file more briefs on the questions of whether 1) the appeals court can even address the issue if no one raised it (they decided they could), and 2) whether the charges, as set out in the indictment, even alleged a crime. I've been doing this a very long time, but cannot ever remember a similar case.

The second thing that popped out to me when reading the opinion is that the Court of Appeals totally rejected the prosecutor's arguments that any problems with the indictment could be fixed by "inferring" the missing pieces. My law partner, Carl, and I have been fighting this fight for over a decade now. Prosecutors get invalid indictments that do not allege everything needed to prove a crime, but judges have been increasingly letting them get away with it by referring to some faulty and flimsy earlier rulings where the missing elements of the crime are put back in by the process of making an "inference.

It is cases like this that re-energize me. I am glad to see judges who take their jobs seriously and who do not think they are supposed to merely rubber stamp every conviction that comes along. While such cases get my juices flowing, the decision also reminds me that all lawyers need to take a good long look at the charges in an indictment, and not just assume the charging document actually alleges a crime.

Both in federal criminal cases here in Atlanta and around the country, as well as in the state court proceedings we handle throughout Georgia, we occasionally deal with issues relating to "Double Jeopardy," the portion of the Fifth Amendment that says prosecutors only get one bite at the apple. Yesterday, by a 8-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court continued to protect all of us against multiple prosecutions by holding there cannot be a second trial even when the judge made a mistake by erroneously granting an acquittal to the Defendant in the first trial. The case is Evans v. Michigan.

Mr. Evans was accused of setting a building on fire. One Michigan law makes it a crime to burn a dwelling, while a second law makes it a crime to burn "other real property." At the close of the evidence, the Defendant's lawyer pointed to standard jury instructions which require proof that the property was a "non-dwelling" before a person could be convicted of the crime of burning "other real property." The trial judge, noting that the property owner said the building WAS a dwelling, granted an acquittal for the Defendant because the prosecution had failed to prove the property was NOT a dwelling. It turns out the trial judge was completely wrong, in that burning "other real property" is a lesser-included offense of the greater crime of burning a dwelling. The prosecution appealed, and Michigan's appellate courts decided that a second trial was OK, even despite the protections from the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that retrial following a court-decreed acquittal is barred, even if the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. An "acquittal" includes any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability for an offense. This is different from procedural rulings, which lead to dismissals or mistrials for reasons unrelated to factual guilt or innocence. An acquittal is a substantive ruling that concludes proceedings absolutely, and thus raise significant Double Jeopardy concerns. Here, the trial court clearly evaluated the prosecution's evidence and determined that it was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. While the acquittal was the product of an erroneous interpretation of governing legal principles, that error affects only the accuracy of the determination to acquit, not its essential character.

Along the way, the Supreme Court addressed the prosecution's argument that Mr. Evans got a "windfall", and he should not get the benefit of a real bonehead ruling by the trial judge. The U.S. Supreme Court was unimpressed, noting that States and the federal government have the power to prevent such situations by disallowing the practice of midtrial acquittals, encouraging courts to defer consideration of a motion to acquit until after the jury renders a verdict, or providing for mandatory continuances or expedited interlocutory appeals. The bottom line: the Double Jeopardy Clause remains intact as one of the bulwarks protecting individuals from multiple prosecutions, even when the first case was erroneously decided against the prosecution.

We have represented executives who worked years ago in businesses that are now under federal investigation for supposedly committing fraud and other white collar offenses. Because our clients left the business many years ago, we are closely following a case that might have a big impact on how we handle the matter. As most people know, crimes almost always are subject to what most people refer to as "the Statute of Limitations," or "SOL". In a few weeks the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a fascinating case involving the SOL. The main issue is whether a defendant who was in jail for more than the past 20 years can be forced to prove that he was no longer a member of and withdrew from a conspiracy that continued past the year 2000. The case is Smith v. United States.

The SOL means that once the limitations period has passed, prosecutors can no longer bring a case against a defendant. The general SOL in federal criminal cases says that the prosecutors must get an indictment within 5 years of a crime.

A subsidiary principle in SOL cases involves the idea of "withdrawal" from a conspiracy. Under this principle, a Defendant who is a member of a conspiracy can get out of the illegal agreement, but only if he does something to defeat the purposes of the conspiracy or lets the other members know that he is through with it. A Defendant who withdraws therefore is not guilty of the crime if he withdraws from the illegal agreement more than 5 years before the indictment was issued by the grand jury.

Mr. Smith has been in prison continually since 1990, except for about 16 months in 1993-94. During those 16 months prosecutors proved that he was a member of a far-flung and very violent drug gang in Washington, D.C. Mr. Smith went back to prison the last time on June 1, 1994. In the year 2000, federal prosecutors got an indictment which included a claim that Mr. Smith was a member of a conspiracy that started back in the early 1990's and went up to 2000. Mr. Smith's legal team argued that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy by virtue of being locked up for the 6 years preceding the day when the feds got their indictment.

The trial took 10 months. After 12 days of deliberation, the jury asked a very reasonable question: which side has the burden of proving whether a Defendant withdrew from a conspiracy? The trial judge told the jury that it was the Defendant who had the burden of proof, and furthermore, that he had to prove his withdrawal by a "preponderance" of the evidence, meaning it was more likely than not he had gotten out of the illegal agreement. In other words, the trial judge told the jurors that if they were 50% convinced that he had not withdrawn, then Smith was still guilty.

This issue has caused a big rift among the various federal courts of appeals, with 6 going one way, and 6 seeing it differently. The Supreme Court will address a series of questions in this important federal criminal appeal. First, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment the prosecutors always have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all "elements" of a crime. Because the existence and membership are elements of any federal conspiracy crime, Mr. Smith contends that it violates the Due Process Clause to make him disprove that he continued to be a part of the illegal gang. Second, the Supreme Court will confront a series of questions stemming from how to analyze the case if the trial judge made a mistake when telling the jury that Mr. Smith had the burden of proof. A very important case from a few years back written by Justice Scalia held that an erroneous instruction about the burden of proof means that the whole trial was tainted, regardless of how much evidence implicated the Defendant in question.

We think this is a very important federal criminal case, and will follow it closely.

Here in Atlanta we have a good relationship with the federal prosecutors, and can generally work out some good arrangements when we represent a client who is served with a federal grand jury subpoena. As we explain elsewhere, it is always a good idea to have a lawyer help one through this dangerous process. Yesterday the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion that demonstrates the dangers of going through this process without at least first consulting with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer. The case is US v. Merrill.

Mr. Merrill was involved in a company that sold munitions to the Army. The munitions would then be shipped to Afghanistan. There is a federal statute and regulation saying that companies cannot provide any such munitions if the material was manufactured by a company in Communist China. Merrill and others had "old" munitions that had been made by a Chinese Communist manufacturer years before the prohibition went into effect. When they tested the waters, they discovered that the US government would still not allow the use of this "old" Communist material, so they did what any self-respecting international arms dealer would do: they removed all signs of its origin and shipped the stuff to Afghanistan.

The feds eventually got wise, and sent Mr. Merrill a federal grand jury subpoena, telling him to appear in Miami two days before he was supposed to testify in front of a federal grand jury. Merrill apparently showed up with no lawyer helping him. You guessed it, during those two days a federal prosecutor and several agents "dry cleaned" Mr. Merrill, telling him that they had the goods on him, telling him it would be better if he 'fessed up, and getting him to basically incriminate himself.

They later indicted Mr. Merrill. His defense team argued that Merrill's statements should be suppressed because a court cannot admit against a defendant “a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed.R. Evid. 410(a)(4). However, there were no charges pending at the time of the interview. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found it important that Merrill was free to end the interview or to consult with his attorney, and he declined to do either even though he was advised of his rights. And here's the important part: the trial court "credited the testimony of Agents Vasquez and Perez who testified that any discussions of leniency were general in nature and that no specific promises were made." As a result, the Court ruled that even if Merrill thought that he was cutting a deal when he made admissions to the prosecutor and the agents, the Court decided to believe the agents who testified that no such deal was discussed.

It is always important to have a lawyer when a person speaks with a federal prosecutor or agent. It is perhaps more important to have another person accompany the Defendant and the lawyer, so that if there is a dispute the Courts cannot always simply rubber-stamp whatever the agents "remember" from such a meeting. This recent case is further proof of why people should consult experienced federal criminal defense lawyers when they get a grand jury subpoena.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the well-known protection against double jeopardy. Some lawyers and lay people might not realize that there is sort of a "little brother" to the protection against double jeopardy, which is called the rule of "collateral estoppel." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, down the street from us here in Atlanta, recently used the "little brother" to reverse a criminal conviction from the Middle District of Florida. The case is United States v. Valdiviez-Garza.

Double jeopardy protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Collateral estoppel, on the other hand, teaches that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit. In other words, if there was an earlier criminal case that the Defendant won, and if the jury in that previous case "necessarily determined" a certain fact in the Defendant's favor, then there cannot be a later case against that same Defendant if the subsequent case requirs proof of that same fact. Therefore, the big issue in this context almost always is whether the earlier trial involved a fact or issue that was "necessarily determined" in the defendant's favor.

In Valdiviez-Garza, he had previously been charged with illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation. He won that case by arguing that he was not an illegal alien because he obtained citizenship through his father, who was also a citizen. Several years later, he was prosecuted again for illegally entering the country, and this later case also required the prosecutor to prove he was not a citizen. However, he got convicted the second go-round. He appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and they agreed that he should have never faced the second prosecution because of the collateral estoppel rule. The only issue in his first trial was whether he was an alien, and he won. There never should have been a second prosecution, because the issue of his alienage had already been determined in the earlier trial.

This is a rather rare case. It is refreshing to see the courts remember that the government should only get one whack at a Defendant, otherwise we could all be in jeopardy time and time again.

In late May, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from federal cases in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, decided U.S. v. Cunningham. The Court held that the federal statute that provides for revocation of supervised release is constitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, despite its provision for reimprisonment of a criminal defendant based upon conduct that is not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The supervised release revocation statute is at 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). It permits a district court to “revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release” upon a finding “by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.”

In 2000, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that, other than prior convictions, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In 2004, the Supreme Court explained in Blakely v. Washington that the “statutory maximum” is the maximum sentence a judge may impose based upon the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.

The Eleventh Circuit distinguished the revocation of supervised release from Apprendi and Blakely. The Court reasoned that the defendant was already convicted of the underlying offenses and was granted only conditional liberty, depending upon his obeying the limits of his supervised release. In holding that a violation of supervised release need only be proven to a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court joined six other circuits.

The Cunningham opinion is available here.

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits here in Atlanta, Georgia, issued its opinion in U.S. v. Garcia-Cordero. The Court held that the federal immigration law that requires persons transporting international passengers to “bring and present” those passengers to immigration officers does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as applied to criminal defendants who smuggle aliens into the United States.

The federal immigration statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1324 criminalizes bringing illegal immigrants to the United States and provides an increased penalty for failure to “bring and present” the alien to an immigration officer at a designated port of entry. The Court held that, because the immigration laws are more regulatory than criminal, and because the statute applies to all persons transporting all aliens (rather than only those without prior authorization to enter,) the statute “does not target a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.” Thus, the statute is a part of a regulatory regime, against which the Fifth Amendment privilege may not be asserted.

The Court's opinion is available here.