In a fifteen page opinion, the 11
th Circuit has ruled for the Government on its appeal of the order dismissing Count I of the Padilla indictment.
Here is the initial coverage by Vanessa Blum. More to follow from me once I've read the opinion. Initial coverage by me
here.
Update -- So, I've read the decision. It's pretty bland. But if the law is supposed to make sense to the average citizen, check out these sentences in the concluding section:
Our analysis could stop there, but in light of the rather abstract nature of the
elemental analysis, we think it wise to elaborate briefly on the concept in practical terms. It appears that the trouble in this appeal stems from the interrelatedness of the three counts at issue. As we have noted, § 956 (the charge in Count One) serves as an object offense for § 2339A (the charge in Count Three), which serves as an object offense for § 371 (the charge in Count Two). But while these three charges are interrelated, they are not interdependent. The object offenses on which Counts Two and Three are premised are not themselves elements of those counts. In other words, to use Count Three as an example, the Government need not prove all the elements of § 956, the object offense, in order to satisfy the elements of the substantive § 2339A charge.Yikes. The law has taken a strange path on
prosecutorial decision-making, hasn't it? I think what the court is saying is that the law permits prosecutors to charge the same facts under lots of different legal theories. But does that make any sense? Do you think jurors understand this very fine distinction? Shouldn't we be making it easier for juries, not harder? I think Judge Cooke had the right idea -- the prosecutors need to figure out how it wants to proceed on this case and go forward on that theory. Prosecutions should not be multiple choice tests.
