ILNews

Former recorder's extortion convictions upheld

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a former Lake County Recorder's convictions of extortion, but remanded so that his sentence could be revised because the District Court placed too much weight on following the sentencing guidelines.

In United States of America v. Morris Carter, No. 06-2412, Morris Carter challenged his three convictions and sentence of 51 months of incarceration on extortion charges.

Carter was found guilty of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1951(a) while he was still county recorder. Carter helped Peter Livas, an FBI informant and owner of real estate rehab and development companies, obtain a list of sheriff's sales before anyone else and charged him $1,000.

Livas paid Carter $500 to get a Lake County contractor's license without having to pass the written test when the normal amount is $150 after passing the test. Livas also paid Carter $400 to have him purge a lien document on Livas' home.

At trial, Carter testified the money he received was a consulting retainer fee and that all other witnesses who testified against him were lying. Carter filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence to find his alleged conduct had affected interstate commerce, which was denied.

Sentencing guidelines ranged from 51 to 63 months and Carter's counsel argued he should be given a below guidelines sentence of 41 months because he had a long history of public service.

The U.S. District Court researched whether the court could depart from the sentencing guidelines because Carter worked in public office and found no basis for the departure. The court said without authority it was unwilling to depart from adherence to the guidelines.

The 7th Circuit found the depletion of assets theory in this case is dependent on whether the government provided sufficient evidence to show Livas' three Indiana-based corporations purchased items through interstate commerce.

Carter also appealed the government's line of questioning during his cross-examination, when he was asked whether each of the witnesses called by the government was lying.

The 7th Circuit found that the jury would have convicted Carter even without his testimony regarding other witnesses' credibility because of the U.S. District Court's curative instructions to the jury to decide whether the testimony of the witnesses is truthful in any part and what weight is given to each testimony, and the amount of video evidence against him.

Carter appealed his sentence, claiming the U.S. District Court erred by treating the guidelines as mandatory, especially in light of mitigating facts in his favor, the weak evidence supporting the enhancement for serving as a leader of the extortion, and his history in public service.

The U.S. District Court placed too much weight on the guidelines when considering Carter's sentence, wrote Judge Joel Flaum. The guidelines are one factor among those listed in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a), and regardless of whether other courts have previously recognized public service as a grounds for departure, sentencing courts are charged with considering the history and characteristics of the defendant, which includes public service.

Other factors of Section 3553(a) must also be balanced; the 7th Circuit remanded for resentencing so the U.S. District Court can make this determination with the guidelines being given appropriate post-Booker weight, 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