ILNews

7th Circuit warns attorneys about compliance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals chastised the U.S. Attorney's Office in Indiana's Northern District to "get its act together" to comply strictly with a statute that imposes a mandatory life sentence for a defendant convicted of a drug offense with two prior drug convictions. The Circuit Court upheld a defendant's life sentence, finding the government fulfilled the statutory purposes and adequately informed the defendant of what he was facing.

In United States of America v. Jerome Williams Jr., No. 09-1924, Jerome Williams claimed the government failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. Section 851(a)(1), the "notice of enhancement statute," so he should be re-sentenced. The notice sent to Williams contained only one conviction from 2002 and stated further information concerning his criminal history can be obtained from the United States Probation Office in the Pretrial Services Report. The report wasn't attached in the information and wasn't even filed with the District Court until nine months after Williams received the notice.

The report lists Williams' prior record, which contains 19 sets of charges but only one other felony drug conviction. The government's lawyer explained he prepared the notice in haste long before it was due because he was afraid he'd forget about it.

"The excuse that the government's lawyer gave us for these omissions does not reflect well on the Department of Justice," wrote Judge Richard Posner. "He thus has offered an all-purpose excuse for premature filings in federal courts of any and all documents."

The Circuit opinion took the U.S. Attorney's office to task for not having a protocol for compliance with Section 851 and for the inconsistencies in how the notices are presented.

"It is odd that U.S. Attorneys seem to have so much difficulty in complying unambiguously with a simple statute," the judge noted.

But caselaw has said that as long as the defendant has actual notice of the intended use of a prior conviction to enhance his sentence, the statute has been substantially complied with and that's good enough. The Circuit Court determined that to be the case for Williams and upheld his life sentence.

Williams has a legitimate argument that the notice should contain which specific convictions are being relied on to enhance, and placing the dispositions and convictions in one list could leave a defendant to guess which one is being used to enhance the sentence. However, in Williams' case, he only had one other felony drug conviction, so it was clear which convictions were being used, wrote Judge Posner.

The Circuit Court advised the Department of Justice to notify all U.S. Attorneys of the importance of strict compliance because it seems to be a problem across jurisdictions. Sloppy compliance brings a risk the court will hold the government failed to provide a defendant with adequate notice or the defendant has a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

"For these reasons and to spare us pointless appeals, the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted this case would be well advised to get its act together and comply strictly with section 851," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT