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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT