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 was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT