Judge's focus 'odd,' 'inappropriate' for Circuit's taste

September 14, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The post was written by IL managing editor Elizabeth Brockett.

Sometimes a case makes the news not because of the merits, but for some other reason. Such a case came from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday. Writing for the panel, Judge Diane P. Wood noted there was “little out of the ordinary” in Jose Figueroa’s trial and conviction. He was charged with heading a multimillion-dollar drug conspiracy in Wisconsin. A jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine.

Judge Wood wrote that his evidentiary decision challenge had no merit; however, it was comments made during sentencing by Wisconsin Eastern District Judge Rudolph T. Randa that raised questions. The appellate panel remanded, noting that Judge Randa’s “process was so far out of bounds that Figueroa is entitled to resentencing.”

In United State of America v. Jose Figueroa, also known as Jose Figueroa-Maldanado, No. 09-3333, Judge Wood noted the sentence of 235 months was unremarkable, but “the process the district court used to get there – in particular, its extraneous and inflammatory comments during the sentencing hearing – cast doubt on the validity of the sentence.”

Judge Wood wrote, “The sentencing transcript reveals an odd focus on nation-states and national characteristics. The district court linked the drug trade to Mexico, then to Colombia and Venezuela, and then to Iranian terrorists through the person of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. … Turning to punishment, he remarked that Figueroa should be happy that he was headed to an American – rather than a Mexican or Turkish – prison, and that Figueroa’s conduct could have resulted in execution had it occurred in Malaysia or Thailand.”

“The transcript also reveals the district court judge’s use of colorful – and inappropriate – analogies to dispense with arguments that he did not appreciate. Rejecting Figueroa’s wife’s comment that the sentence was unfair, he said that ‘[i]t reminds me of … the person who killed his parents . . . asking [the judge] to have sympathy for him because he’s an orphan.’”

“Later, the judge discounted Figueroa’s claim that he was a good family man: ‘even Adolf Hitler was admired by his family. Adolf Hitler loved his dog. Yet he killed six million Jews.’”

Is Judge Randa one who’s tough on drug dealers and got a little overzealous in his rebuke? For the record, Judge Randa is no rookie. He served as chief judge of that district from 2002 to 2009. He also previously served on the U.S. Judicial Conference Code of Conduct Committee.

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
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT