Tuesday, April 03, 2007

D. Kyle Sampson

Although some of you thought that the trivia question below about D. Kyle Sampson was another April Fool's post, it was not. He actually tried a felon in possession case -- United States v. Heron Stepherson -- in the Southern District of Florida in March 2004. Judge Hurley presided and the local AUSA was Lothrop Morristhe. AFPD was Bob Adler.

Thanks to one of my favorite readers for the answer to the trivia question!

As for felon in possession cases, check out Rumpole's riff here regarding gun prosecutions in both state and federal court. He raises an issue that the Federal PDs have been complaining about for a long time. The problem is that the cases which permitted dual prosecutions were decided when the feds did not really pursue the run of the mill state gun or drug case. Now that it's common practice, those cases really should be reconsidered. Or better yet, the Justice Department should follow its "petite policy."

As for American Idol tonight, Sanjaya Malakar won't be voted off. My bet is on Phil Stacey or Haley Scarnato to go.

UPDATE -- here are portions of the "petite policy":

"The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

"This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. ...

"The first substantive prerequisite is that the matter must involve a substantial federal interest. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.230. Matters that come within the national investigative or prosecutorial priorities established by the Department are more likely than others to satisfy this requirement.

"The second substantive prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest. That presumption, however, may be overcome when there are factors suggesting an unvindicated federal interest."

United States Attorneys' Manual 9-2.031

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Spicoli,

It looks like it is just me and you here. What's up with the new courthouse man, do you have any info on when that ship is going to start boarding? Do you think it is too late to put a smoke machine on the stack to give it a real finishing touch?

Your friend - Brad

spicoli said...

Brad -- hope you've made it out of the bathroom!

I like the nuts and bolts for the record. Here and at Rumpole's are places to learn. Mr. Hand taught me that. hang on.........

Yup. He did.

Truth be told, all can benefit, and have fun, at both locations.

I liked when you threw coffee in that dude's face. Rumpole is defending him. The case is pending in the Supreme Court of Cyberspace.

spicoli said...

Brad -- hope you've made it out of the bathroom!

I like the nuts and bolts for the record. Here and at Rumpole's are places to learn. Mr. Hand taught me that. hang on.........

Yup. He did.

Truth be told, all can benefit, and have fun, at both locations.

I liked when you threw coffee in that dude's face. Rumpole is defending him. The case is pending in the Supreme Court of Cyberspace.

Brad said...

I made it out alright -- too bad it worked out that way, she could have been more understanding.

Guy deserved it.

Do you think we can talk Mr. Hand into joining this discussion. I know he is an AUSA, but you would think sooner or later the guy would come around and at least talk.

spicoli said...

There ought be several Mr. Hands on the blogs. (I said "Ought)

To answer your question Brad, I hope so because I think both of these sites are educational and funny. Hell, I know I do not know as much as I should about Federal practice. Thus, I read here. Always more to learn said Mr. Hand.

I'll read the new post later and see if I can contribute something other than tounge and cheek. Keep it up Mr. Markus. I think by virtue of you having a link on Rumpole's site it is a sign of respect. I do not know this for the record. Nor do I know him for the record. He is the Wonkette of Dade.

Aloha Brad and Mr. Markus. Spicoli learns here and there. Keep up the great work. This site is really helpful to those who dwell in State Court mostly and this one in particular helps me learn the ropes. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Your name is mentioned in TPM Muckraker today.