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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT