A Place at the Table

By Michael Caruso

Earlier this week, David posted an article that lamented Judge Charles Bryer's status as the sole member of the United States Commission (USSC). But that description is not entirely accurate. Judge Breyer is the sole voting member of the USSC. There are currently two “ex officio” members of the USSC. Both ex officio members are employees of the Department of Justice—a designee of the Attorney General of the United States and the Chairperson of the United States Parole Commission. 

Since the creation of the USSC in 1984, and despite persistent efforts, there never has been an ex officio representative from the Federal Defender community.  Unlike the USSC, the majority of state sentencing commissions have a public defender representative to provide them with advice and input at crucial stages of the decision-making process. Because we represent over 65% of those charged in federal criminal cases, a public defender representative would improve transparency and accountability in sentencing policy and provide the Commission with an internal defense perspective and balance.

Today, Senators Booker and Durbin introduced legislation to repair this long-standing structural issue. The self-described mission of the USSC is “to reduce sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing.” These are laudable goals, and this reform undoubtedly will further that mission. Congress hopefully will act expeditiously. 

Can prosecutors get an automatic 6 month extension under the statute of limitations for any reason they want?

 That's the issue in United States v. B.G.G., which I will be arguing in the 11th Circuit in January.  I will be defending Judge Middlebrooks' order, which Jay Weaver covers in this lengthy Herald article.  The Herald is covering the issue again because since B.G.G. was decided, Judges Ruiz and Altman have issued orders coming out the other way.  From the Herald:

When the coronavirus pandemic gripped the nation, the federal court system also largely ground to a halt. Not only did trials get postponed but grand juries could no longer meet to consider indicting criminal defendants. In South Florida, as idle criminal cases ranging from healthcare to financial fraud piled up, prosecutors did what some critics called an end-run around the grand jury process — normally a critical step before charging defendants. They filed a document known as an “information” to avoid missing the five-year deadline to bring charges under the statute of limitations — but without obtaining the constitutionally required consent of defendants to give up their right to be charged by a grand jury indictment. This story is a subscriber exclusive Now, a federal appeals court is going to hear oral arguments in January that will spotlight conflicting decisions on this crucial matter by U.S. district court judges in South Florida: Two found that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office acted lawfully, but one concluded they did not when they filed an information as a place keeper to stay within the statute of limitations without the approval of the defendant. Much is riding on the outcome in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama — because a ruling could decide whether about 10 defendants will still face charges for crimes that both sides acknowledge happened more than five years ago. “Three judges in our district have written thoughtful opinions addressing an issue brought about by the pandemic and caused by the absence of grand juries,” prominent Miami white-collar defense attorney Jon Sale told the Miami Herald. “These decisions are a law professor’s delight,” said Sale, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern Districts of New York and Florida. “They look to the meaning of words going all the way back to the times of our Founding Fathers. It is up to the Eleventh Circuit to resolve the relationship between the plain meaning of a statute and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to be charged by a grand jury within the statute of limitations.” 

Back at it

Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving break.

I am thankful for judges who work with lawyers on scheduling and grant continuances.

I can't imagine Judge Breyer is thankful about the status of the Sentencing Commission.  From Reuters:

Two Democratic and Republican lawmakers in a letter on Monday urged President Joe Biden to prioritize filling vacancies that have left the U.S. Sentencing Commission without a quorum, saying the situation has stalled criminal justice reform.

U.S. Representatives Kelly Armstrong, Republican of North Dakota, and Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, said the vacancies have "forestalled the important work of updating and establishing new sentencing guidelines."

A White House spokesperson had no immediate comment.

The commission lost its quorum in January 2019, a month after former Republican President Donald Trump signed into law the First Step Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at easing harsh sentencing for non-violent offenders and at reducing recidivism.

Armstrong and Raskin said the lack of quorum also meant the commission cannot update the advisory sentencing guidelines needed to help implement the law, resulting potentially in its uneven application by judges across the country. "It is imperative that the vacancies are expeditiously filled so the Commission can continue its work to improve the federal criminal justice system," the lawmakers wrote.

The seven-person panel's lone remaining member, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, told Reuters this month he would be "surprised and dismayed" if Biden did not pick nominees by early 2022 and urged him to help restore its quorum. Breyer's own term expired on Oct. 31 but he can remain on the commission for up to a year more unless a replacement is confirmed. Armstrong and Raskin cited his potential departure as another reason to act.

Elizabeth Holmes takes the stand

 Unfortunately we can't watch it (as we did with the Rittenhouse trial).  How absurd.

So, we need to rely on short news stories about the drama in court, which of course, are always skewed toward the government.  Here's NBC News:

Theranos founder and former CEO Elizabeth Holmes returned to the witness stand Tuesday, confirming key aspects of the prosecutor’s allegations behind the 11 counts of fraud she faces, but asserting that there was nothing wrong in what she did.

The prosecution has repeatedly shown jurors lab reports emblazoned with logos of the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Schering-Plough. Witnesses from those companies who worked with Theranos testified that the use of the logos was unauthorized and they were unaware of it at the time.

Holmes admitted that she was the one who had added the logos to Theranos lab reports and sent them to Walgreens as she pursued a deal to put her blood-testing startup's diagnostic machines in the pharmacy's retail stores.

Holmes acknowledged that in some cases, Theranos used third-party devices, rather than its own equipment.

“This work was done in partnership with those companies and I was trying to convey that,” she said by way of explanation. "I wish I had done it differently,” she added.

Addressing another key point made by the prosecution, Holmes said that when Theranos switched from using on-site analyzers to process samples to a centralized lab approach, it used third-party devices rather than its own equipment as an “invention” because there were too many samples to handle. Witnesses have testified that Theranos' signature blood-testing machine repeatedly failed quality assurance tests and delivered erroneous results. Holmes said the company didn’t tell its business partners about this arrangement because it was a trade secret.

She rebutted the prosecution's arguments about some of the alleged misrepresentations she made to investors, the media and business partners, affirming that she had received specific positive reports from employees and outside experts and believed their statements to be true.

And we can't even see images of the courtroom... we get sketches instead.  

Anyway, I hope all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving... even you Rumpole.

Biden pardons two turkeys...

 ...but we are still waiting on the first human pardon.

Not a good look for a President who said he would be open to criminal justice reform.  

The New York Post covers Biden's response to the question of when to expect some real pardons:

As if there was any doubt — “Peanut Butter” and “Jelly” will not be on the Thanksgiving dinner table this year.

President Biden pardoned turkeys named after the common kids lunch ingredients Friday, continuing a pre-Thanksgiving tradition in the Rose Garden after he laughed off a question about whether he would also pardon human beings — as clemency advocates asked him to honor his pledge to free “everyone” in prison for marijuana offenses.

“Will you be pardoning any people in addition to turkeys?” The Post asked Biden as he returned to the White House after receiving a physical and colonoscopy at Walter Reed Medical Center outside Washington.

Biden, wearing aviator sunglasses, pointed at a reporter and joked, “Are you — you need a pardon?” In response to a follow-up question about whether he would free pot inmates, whom he vowed to release during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Biden said, “just turkeys.”

This is why we really need judges to grant more compassionate release motions and issue large variances.  There's no reason why America should lead the world in people imprisoned and lead the world in length of sentences.   

One reason we see these numbers is the "trial tax."  Clark Neily from CATO just wrote an important piece about how rare trials are and how we need to get back to the basics in our criminal justice system -- the right to a trial without fear of an enormous sentence.  The intro:

The most remarkable thing about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is that there was a trial at all.

The vast majority of criminal prosecutions in our system are not resolved by trial but instead by an ad hoc and often extraordinarily coercive process that we refer to euphemistically as “plea bargaining.” Because of the way it unfolded, however, the Rittenhouse case sheds important light on our decision to generally substitute plea bargaining for constitutionally prescribed jury trials, in open defiance of the Founders’ deliberate and very wise decision to make citizen participation integral to the administration of criminal justice. The lesson here is clear: We can be certain that other prosecutions would collapse as spectacularly as Rittenhouse’s if we reined in the government’s ability to spackle over weak cases with coerced pleas.

Former UM professor Bruce Bagley sentenced to 6 months

One of the country's most thoughtful sentencing judges, Jed Rakoff, had the case.  From the NY Times:

Prosecutors had argued for a sentence below guidelines of 46 to 57 months, but did not specify exactly how much lower. In court papers this month, prosecutors said that although Dr. Bagley’s age and health should be taken into consideration, some incarceration was necessary to serve as a deterrent.

In court on Tuesday, Judge Rakoff said that a sentence of up to five years, as recommended by federal guidelines, would be “irrational” and “overly punitive,” according to The A.P. But like prosecutors, the judge said some incarceration was needed. The judge recommended that Dr. Bagley’s sentence be served in a medical facility, according to a Justice Department spokesman.

According to prosecutors, Dr. Bagley opened a bank account in Florida under his company’s name, Bagley Consultants, in 2016. But there was hardly any activity in the account until a year later, when he started receiving large deposits from bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates and in Switzerland.

Those accounts ostensibly belonged to a food company and a wealth management firm but were actually controlled by a Colombian national whose money came from “the proceeds of foreign bribery and embezzlement stolen from the Venezuelan people,” according to an indictment.

Dr. Bagley knew the source of the money and entered into “multiple sham contracts” in order to conceal it, according to the indictment.

After each deposit, Dr. Bagley would go to his bank and get a cashier’s check for about 90 percent of the money, which he would then give to another individual, and wire the rest to his personal bank account, the indictment said.

In October 2018, the bank closed the company’s account because of suspicious activity, according to the indictment. But Dr. Bagley opened another account in his name that December and continued the scheme until April 2019, receiving at least 14 illegal deposits, prosecutors say.

Though Dr. Bagley lives in Florida and the laundered funds were sent to Florida banks, prosecutors said they were prosecuting the case in Manhattan because the money passed through New York City as it came from abroad.

 Law360 also covered the case, and included this awesome statement by Judge Rakoff:

Prosecutors asked for prison time below Bagley's non-binding federal guidelines range of 46–57 months, while the defense had asked for time served, citing the 75-year-old's age, pulmonary nodules, diabetes and hypertension in a heavily redacted sentencing submission.

The judge said prison was warranted to send a message of deterrence, but also acknowledged Bagley's health problems as he quipped that "some might describe" the Federal Bureau of Prisons' repeated assurances that it can handle any medical issue as "a repeated fraud on the court."

Say it ain't so

 The CARES Act is expiring on 11/25/21.  Unless it gets extended again, there will be no more video conferences for criminal proceedings.  That's bad news!  

Zoom hearings for various criminal proceedings has been really efficient and beneficial for criminal defendants and lawyers.  Here's hoping that we find a solution and that Zoom can continue for some of our proceedings.

In other news, Rumpole's blog turns 16 today.  That's an incredible run for a blog.  Head over there and wish him well.

"Why the Supreme Court needs an ethics code"

That's the title of this interesting piece by Nicholas Rostow. The introduction:

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court reform commission has had a tumultuous past month. A draft report’s warnings about court-packing upset liberals, while two conservatives resigned for reasons that remain unclear.

Ultimately, these issues symbolize the American people’s warped views of the “highest court in the land.” Too many Americans expect justices on their “team” to legislate from the bench, rather than simply interpret the law as the Constitution requires.

The answer to this polarization is not court-packing or confirming more pro-life judges. Instead, Congress should pass an ethics code for the Supreme Court.

A code of conduct for the justices would be fair, practical, and effective. Such a nonpartisan reform would not change the fundamental structure of the court. But it would constrain the justices from conducting partisan or unethical activities that undermine public faith in the court and the law. A code of conduct could have held Chief Justice John Roberts accountable when he did not recuse himself from a 2016 case involving a company in which he owned stock. And ethical guidelines could have penalized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after she told The New York Times in 2016, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”

The reality is that the American people are losing faith in the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter. In October, the court’s approval rating sunk to 40 percent, the lowest since Gallup began tracking this statistic in 2000. Over half of Americans disapprove of the court’s job performance. But an ethics code could rebuild public faith in the judiciary at this critical time.