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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT