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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT