Recently in Criminal Law Category

You’re all familiar with the “acceptance of responsibility” sentence reduction. Someone cops to the crime and shows remorse, then they get a few levels knocked off their guidelines. Simple enough, right?

Robert Chu pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge in a timely fashion. Ordinarily, we’d call that “acceptance of responsibility.” Except, throughout his detention, including the period after his plea, but before sentencing, he made “persistent” attempts to sneak drugs into prison. Oddly enough, each attempt involved hiding drugs in potato chip bags.

Despite what Lindsay Lohan’s recent rehab plea bargain would indicate, a court can’t extend a defendant’s sentence for rehab. The Supreme Court is particularly clear on this issue. In Tapia v. U.S., the Court held that a sentencing court may not impose or lengthen a prison term in order to foster a defendant’s rehabilitation.

A defendant may grab an appellate court’s attention by arguing that a sentencing court improperly calculated rehab into his sentence, but today’s Second Circuit ruling demonstrates why he won’t necessarily win.

We've read a lot of appeals from paroled criminals who want to keep their guns. They're starting to blur together. Every time we spot another felon-in-possession Second Amendment defense in a published opinion, it raises the same questions: Haven't the courts already resolved this issue? Why is this a published opinion?

This week, we started to dismiss a Second Circuit Second Amendment defense in a similar fashion. Ron Bryant was sentenced to 81 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and unlawful possession of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime. Bryant moved to vacate the firearm conviction, arguing that he had a right to possess a "legal shotgun" under Heller.

Over the years, we’ve read our fair share of qualified immunity appeals involving police officers. The cops usually win.

The problem with these appeals is that — even when they are in the wrong — cops are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a right that was clearly-established at the time of the incident. That sometimes produces absurd results. (Like the Ninth Circuit ruling that tasing a pregnant woman who wouldn’t sign a speeding ticket counts as excessive force, but the cops were entitled to qualified immunity because the right to a shock-free pregnancy wasn’t clearly-established at the time.)

The silver lining, if you’d care to call it that, is that courts are forced to clearly establish rights for future cases. And that’s what happened this week in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2005, then-New York Governor George Pataki directed the State's Office of Mental Health (OMH) and Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) to develop a plan to take executive action to implement a sexually-violent predator initiative that would result in the involuntary commitment of selected SVPs to state psychiatric facilities after the expiration of their criminal sentences.

Those who were committed under initiative weren't too pleased with the lack of due process, and sued Governor Pataki and officials of OMH and DOCS.

This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the program violated the plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, and that state officials shouldn't receive qualified immunity because they should have known better.

Close-knit families tend to support each other at major life events. Graduations. Weddings. Voir dire for a RICO trial jury selection.

But while it's admirable for families to stand by their accused loves ones, there's no constitutional guarantee that they will get to remain in the courtroom through every step of the trial.

A recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision will make life a lot easier for pharmaceutical sales reps.

Monday, the appellate court ruled that a drug manufacturer's off-label use promotions are protected free speech, as long as such promotions are not false or misleading, Reuters reports.

This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui's conviction and sentence for shooting at FBI agents and soldiers after her arrest in Afghanistan, Reuters reports.

The court, in a decision issued Monday, concluded that a trial court judge had not erred in allowing Siddiqui to take the stand in her own defense at trial.

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payan were convicted in 2010 of planting (what they thought) were bombs outside synagogues in the Bronx and plotting to fire missiles at military planes. They were each sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Prosecutors claim that an FBI informer — posing as a Pakistani terrorist — presented the men with an opportunity to commit violence to which they were predisposed. Defense lawyers claim that the informer used money to lure impoverished defendants with no ties to international terrorism into a plot they wouldn't have devised on their own, The New York Times reports.

Monday, their lawyers argued that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals should overturn the convictions because the men were the victims of government entrapment.

Antonio Briggs was indicted for substantive and conspiratorial drug crimes. He was arraigned on August 17, 2010. On September 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hugh Scott ordered Briggs held without bail pending trial. The district court affirmed that decision, finding that Briggs poses a flight risk and danger to the community.

Briggs has been sitting in jail for two years, and is understandably antsy. He claims that his continued detention violates due process.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Briggs' detention doesn't violate due process quite yet, but it might early next year.