Circuit Court vacates drug sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man's drug conviction, but vacated his sentence because it wasn't confident the District Court judge properly sentenced him.

In United States of America v. Anthony D. Edwards, No. 08-1124, Anthony Edwards appealed his conviction of distributing 5 grams or more of crack and his 108-month prison sentence. Edwards argued his admissions made during a second statement shouldn't have been admitted because he wasn't given Miranda warnings again during his second round of questioning. Approximately 45 minutes earlier, he had signed the waiver form during the first round of questioning and said he understood his rights.

He also claimed evidence of a prior criminal activity by him shouldn't have been admissible under Rule 404(b).

The Circuit Court found the time lapse between Edwards being advised of his rights and his second round of questioning not to be long enough to make the Miranda warnings "stale," wrote Judge Richard Posner. Edwards didn't rebut a presumption that he should remember his right to remain silent even if some time had elapsed between his receiving the warnings and undergoing the questioning in which he gave inculpatory statements.

In terms of the evidence of the prior criminal activity being admitted, the Circuit Court focused on whether the evidence was relevant to an issue in the case, and if so, whether the probative weight of the evidence was nevertheless substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect or by its propensity to confuse or mislead the jury. The testimony by Beagle, the government informant, about previous drug buys between him and Edwards bolstered the government's case that it had arrested Edwards during the course of a drug sale.

"All prior-crimes evidence is prejudicial; otherwise there would be no need for Rule 404(b). But the judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that the admission of the evidence in this case passed muster, for without it the jury might have thought that Beagle had fabricated a planned drug sale in order to curry favor with the government," Judge Posner wrote.

In terms of Edwards' sentence, the Circuit Court noted the District Court judge gave no reason for his belief that $765 found on Edwards during his arrest was proceeds from selling crack. Edwards claimed the money was from selling a van, although there was no evidence to prove his story. The money also could have come from previous sales to Beagle, which would have led to double counting in estimating the amount of crack Edwards had sold.

The District judge had added 12.75 grams to the amount of crack that other evidence showed Edwards had either sold or possessed with the intent to sell. He could have assumed that without basing the assumption on the $765, and still sentenced Edwards to the same guidelines range. However, the Circuit Court isn't confident he wouldn't have imposed a lower sentence if he had drawn no inference from the money, so it vacated Edward's sentence and remanded for a further sentencing hearing.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?