No power or heat at New York federal prison for a week

The New York Times covered this awful story involving no heat during one of the coldest spells every in New York. The prisoners took up banging on the walls and windows.

From the depths of a federal jail on the Brooklyn waterfront, the sound reverberates: a polyrhythmic pounding like a hailstorm on the roof of a shed.

It is the sound of hundreds of men in freezing cells at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park, a jail that was virtually without electricity and largely without heat for over a week. With the jail on partial lockdown, inmates have been unable to use phones to call their loved ones, but their percussive banging could be clearly heard to those outside, and to the world beyond.

The inmates bang anything they can — shoes, their fists — against any surface they meet: the walls and windows and bars of the jail that holds them.

Sunday morning, when protesters unfurled a long paper banner across the street from the jail that said “You are heard you are loved,” the inmates banged their approval.

When Catana Yehudah, whose brother Jason Smith is serving a gun possession sentence at the jail, led a chant through a megaphone — “No heat, that’s torture” — the inmates banged louder.

Ms. Yehudah, 50, called for quiet. “Stop banging for one second!” she yelled. The barrage subsided.

“If there is no heat,” she shouted, “bang on the windows!”

The inmates, nearly invisible behind the windows, pounded louder and louder, the fusillade filling the wide empty street.

Some power was finally restored last night, but the heat is still spotty and many cells don't have any heat at all. Let's hope the courts get involved:

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo called on the federal Department of Justice to determine whether conditions at the jail violated the inmates’ civil rights.

“No one in New York should live in fear that they may freeze to death alone in the dark,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. “These allegations are a violation of human decency and dignity. They also raise questions of potential violations of law.”

Federal Bureau of Prisons officials are due in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday for a hearing ordered by Judge Analisa Torres in response to what she called “disturbing living conditions.”

Lots of discussion re Stone's arrest versus surrender

Here's Sen. Graham raising concerns about not letting Stone self-surrender. (And this is my original piece on it.)

Many have responded that SWAT team arrests is a wide-spread practice and Stone shouldn't be treated differently. But that argument doesn't hold water -- the practice should NOT be widespread. It should not be acceptable to waste resources and risk a dangerous situation where a defendant will voluntarily surrender.

"You are (as the author’s mother used to say) cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Don’t apologize—do better."

That was 11th Circuit Judge Newsom in United States v. Munksgard, affirming a criminal conviction "reluctantly" and over Judge Tojflat's dissent. Here's Judge Newsom's entertaining opening:

This criminal appeal presents both a surprisingly close question of evidentiary sufficiency—so close, in fact, that it has prompted a dissent—and an interesting statutory-interpretation issue. As to the former, federal law criminalizes the act of knowingly making a false statement in order to obtain a loan from a bank that is insured by the FDIC. 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Matthew Munksgard admits to knowingly making false statements in order to obtain bank loans—indeed, four times over. Even so, he contends, the government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt, as it had to, that the institution he swindled was FDIC-insured. This case presents the (irritatingly familiar) question whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove that pesky jurisdictional prerequisite. The proof of FDIC insurance here—as in other cases in which we have rapped the government’s knuckles—was hardly overwhelming. And given the ease with which insurance coverage could have been demonstrated—certificate, contract, cancelled check, etc.—inexplicably so. Having said that, “overwhelming” isn’t the standard, and when we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, see United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1233 (11th Cir. 2010), we conclude—albeit reluctantly—that the proof was adequate to demonstrate Munksgard’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But let this be a warning to federal prosecutors: You are (as the author’s mother used to say) cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Don’t apologize—do better.

I appreciate the wonderful writing, but here's the thing -- prosecutors won't do better until there are consequences, like a reversal. There are so many appellate doctrines meant to make sure that convictions are affirmed (harmless error, abuse of discretion, and so on) that prosecutors and trial judges have learned to do whatever it takes to get the conviction. They know that there won't be any bruisin'. Judge Tjoflat has it right when he concludes:

The majority goes to great lengths to bail the government out. Nothing in our precedent compels this, and the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Because I would vacate the conviction, I respectfully dissent.

It's time to stop bailing the government out.

Federal Bar Reception tomorrow (Thursday) night

Local Federal Bar Association President David Weinstein sends the following email about this Thursday's event. It's always a good one

There might be a big game of Roman Numeral proportion coming up on Sunday, but this Thursday evening is an even bigger event. The South Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association will be hosting its 38th Annual Federal Judicial Reception to honor our federal judges.

Taking place at the Historic Alfred I. Dupont Building in the heart of the 305, there will be no speeches or a sit-down dinner. It’s an opportunity to mingle, network and socialize with the judiciary and your peers.

For more details, click here: https://fba-sdfla.org/event/fbas-38th-annual-federal-judicial-reception/

BOP refuses to give defendants their good-time credit under First Step Act

For many years, there was a debate in the criminal justice community about how much time prisoners should be receiving as good time credit.  Even though they were supposed to be getting 15%, which calculates to 54 days a year, BOP determined that they were only entitled to 47 days a year.  It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you’re inside, every day matters.

The First Step Act fixed this problem and said that good time credit was actually 54 days a year.  And it even applied it retroactively, so many defendants believed that they would be getting out immediately.  But BOP is refusing to award the 54 days, citing to an error in the way that the statute was drafted.  From Reuters:

“You have thousands of families who thought the day this bill passed, their loved ones’ sentence was going to be recalculated and they were going to walk out of their halfway house, their home confinement ... or leave prison,” said Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM).

“It’s a frustrating mistake,” Ring said.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department is analyzing changes for the law and plans to “carry out all necessary steps.”

Reuters has seen a letter sent to inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution Coleman, a federal prison in Florida, in which officials acknowledged the new good-behavior credits would not take effect yet.

“The law will allow BOP in the future to apply 54 days of credit for every year a sentence was imposed, which is a change to the prior law,” the letter says.

“While this change may result in additional credit for inmates in the future, it is not effective immediately nor is it applicable to all inmates,” it says.

Apparently the White House is working on a fix to the probematic language in the statute, but this is just absurd. Judges may want to take this into account when sentencing defendants.

"Special Counsel’s Office wrong to arrest Roger Stone instead of letting him self-surrender"

That's the title to my piece in The Hill about the arrest vs. surrender of Roger Stone.  The arrest of non-cooperators has bothered me for a long time, even for guys like Stone.  Here's the intro:

A swarm of armed federal agents wearing bullet proof vests and equipped with battering rams and other riot gear arrested Roger Stone before sunrise Friday morning. Video cameras from CNN were present to capture the show of force.
There was absolutely no good reason to arrest Stone instead of letting him self-surrender like others who have cooperated with the investigation such as Michael Flynn.

And the conclusion:

Allowing Stone to self-surrender — like others who have cooperated with the government — would show that the Special Counsel is not going to retaliate or unnecessarily embarrass those who do not cooperate with his office.
There’s a long and controversial history of the perp walk.
Of course, sometimes arresting a defendant is necessary. For example, if there is a fear that the person will flee or destroy evidence, then an arrest might be appropriate. But here, where Stone knew of the investigation and was not a flight risk, there was no reason to arrest him before the sun came up with guns blazing.
He would have self-surrendered like others who were permitted to do so in this case.
Instead of instilling confidence in the Special Counsel’s office as neutral and detached, this arrest will give critics of that office a reason to say that it is acting inappropriately and with no real law enforcement purpose.

 Please click through to the article and let me know your thoughts.

Roger Stone arrested in Broward (UPDATED)

He will make his first appearance today at 11am in magistrate court in Ft. Lauderdale. Here’s the indictment which charges obstruction and false statements.

And here is the CNN story for more info.

Questions —  why not let him surrender? Was it a good use of resources to send all of those armed FBI agents to his house in the morning?  Why arrest him on a Friday?  Will the government be asking to hold him no bond over the weekend as they are entitled to do until the bond hearing next week?

UPDATE — The Special Counsel agreed to release Stone on a personal surety bond.

"In olden days a number of methods were used to ensure that juries reached a unanimous verdict. From the fourteenth through the eighteenth centuries, one “method of accelerating unanimity” was to prohibit jurors from eating or drinking until they all agreed on a verdict."

That's how Chief Judge Carnes starts out this entertaining opinion about deadlocked juries.  The entire introduction:

In olden days a number of methods were used to ensure that juries reached a unanimous verdict. From the fourteenth through the eighteenth centuries, one“method of accelerating unanimity” was to prohibit jurors from eating or drinking until they all agreed on a verdict. 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *375. And if jurors did not unanimously agree on one before the judges left town, Blackstone recounted, “the judges are not bound to wait for them, but may carry them round the circuit from town to town in a cart.” Id. at *376. They were hauled around in the cart “until a judgment ‘bounced out.’” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 780, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1866 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Which is to say until the resolve bounced out of the holdout jurors.
In one seventeenth-century sedition trial (involving William Penn and a co-defendant), the jury deadlocked on the most serious charge. George C. Thomas III & Mark Greenbaum, Justice Story Cuts the Gordian Knot of Hung Jury Instructions, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rights J. 893, 898–99 (2007). The judge responded by threatening to have a juror named Bushel branded unless the jury agreed that the defendants were guilty as charged. Id. at 899. When no verdict was forthcoming, the judge did not send for a branding iron, but he did have all the jurors “locked in the jury room without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco” until they could agree. Id. (quotation marks omitted). After nicotine withdrawal and the prospect of starvation failed to work, “the judge threatened to cut Bushel’s throat” if there were no verdict. Id. (Thus posing the prospect of a dead juror to unlock a deadlocked jury.) When even that threat did not bring forth a unanimous verdict, the judge gave up. Id. Bushel escaped the experience unbranded and with his throat intact, while the jury as a whole escaped with its disagreement intact. But the judge was angry enough at the jurors’ failure to agree that he fined each of them forty marks for their intransigence. Id. Fortunately, when the case made it to the Court of Common Pleas the fines were set aside. Id. at 899–900. History does not record if Bushel or any of the eleven other brave souls ever served on another jury.
Since those days, we have come a long way and now accept that some jury deliberations will end in deadlock. United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1460 (11th Cir. 1987) (“The jury trial system has not malfunctioned when the jury cannot reach a verdict. One of the safeguards against the conviction of innocent persons built into our criminal justice system is that a jury may not be able to reach a unanimous verdict.”). We no longer try to coerce holdout jurors to reach a verdict that they cannot abide. Or at least most of the time we don’t.

The opinion goes on to grant a habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel:

The jury that convicted our appellant, Sumnar Brewster, might feel some affinity with juries of yesteryear. Over the period of two days of deliberations the jurors repeatedly told the judges –– there was one judge on the first day of deliberations and a different one on the second day –– that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. And the judges repeatedly ordered them to keep trying. All told, the jurors sent six notes to the two judges stating that they could not reach a verdict.
Three times the jurors disclosed how they were divided: first reporting that they were deadlocked 9 to 3 for conviction, later that they were still deadlocked but now 11 to 1 in favor of conviction, and still later that the one holdout juror was continuing to hold out. Throughout the deadlocking, the judges gave a formal Allen charge, later two additional admonitions that the jurors must continue deliberating, and finally, another long charge that included instructions to keep on deliberating. That lengthy charge emphasized that the jurors had taken an oath to follow the law, which meant they must deliberate more. The judge ended his instructions with the challenge that he had taken his oath seriously and hoped they would do the same.
Shortly thereafter, when told that the one juror who wouldn’t vote to convict was doing crossword puzzles, the judge ordered all the reading materials taken out of the jury room. That tactic turned out to be even more effective than threatening to kill the hapless Bushel had been in William Penn’s case three hundred years before. Just 18 minutes after all reading materials were removed, Brewster’s jury dutifully –– and we do mean dutifully –– returned a guilty verdict. Through it all Brewster’s two attorneys neither objected nor moved for a mistrial. Not once.
This is Brewster’s appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object, or move for a mistrial, at any point during the deadlocked deliberations.