ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT