ILNews

Judges question earlier Circuit holding

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals about child pornography convictions turned into an examination of whether a standard adopted by the Circuit Court regarding allocution should remain the law of the Circuit.

In United States v. Dick L. Noel, No. 07-2468, the Circuit judges unanimously affirmed Dick Noel's convictions of producing and possessing child pornography. Despite the allowance of testimony from a police detective that images found on Noel's computer met the federal definition of child pornography - which was improper - the judges believed the outcome of the case would have been the same if it had been excluded.

The judges also found the District Court committed plain error during its sentencing, including Noel not being allowed allocution, but Judge Michael Kanne and Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook ruled that it didn't affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

But the focus of the opinion turned to whether to revisit United States v. Luepke, 495 F.3d 443, 451 (7th Cir. 2007), which ruled that when conducting plain-error reviews that show a District judge didn't give a defendant the right to allocute, the court should presume prejudice when there's any possibility the defendant would have received a lesser sentence had he been heard. The issue arose because Noel challenged his sentence and argued he wasn't given the chance for meaningful allocution because the District judge didn't personally ask him if he'd like to speak and instead spoke directly to his attorney. The attorney read aloud a letter written by Noel that she thought may help with his sentencing in response to comments by the prosecutor.

The holding that a judge must address a defendant personally and offer him or her the opportunity to speak before sentencing was codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii.) Chief Judge Easterbrook took issue in his concurring opinion that an appellate court must presume prejudice when there is any possibility that the defendant would have received a lesser sentence had he been given the chance to speak because the presumption is in the defendant's favor and the proposition of "any possibility" of prejudice suffices to establish plain error.

Luepke justified transferring the burden to the prosecutor because it's hard to show an adverse effect from a judge's failure to address the defendant personally, rather than addressing counsel in the defendant's presence, which conveys the same information but doesn't satisfy the rule, he wrote.

"That a violation did not affect anyone's behavior - which may explain why no one objected - ought not make reversal the norm. It is instead why a court of appeals should allow the judgment to stand," he wrote.

But in her dissent, Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote the appellate court can't deny the importance of the right to allocute and the steps the District Court must take to enforce it. She argued the presumption of prejudice allows the right to be enforced and provides a remedy when procedural rules may have rendered it effectively obsolete.

"The presumption we adopted in Luepke does not make the denial of allocution a structural error, nor does it advocate for automatic reversal. It recognizes that the right is more than an 'unenforced honor code' that judges may follow in their discretion," she wrote. "Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, I see no reason to revisit Luepke."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT