U. S. Supreme Court Happenings – December 14, 2022--

ALERT 2020 Update – U. S. Supreme Court Happenings – December 14, 2022 –

Supreme Court Grants Cert Review on Two More Criminal Cases –

On Friday, The Supreme Court granted cert on four new cases. Two of the new cases to be argued in early 2023 are criminal cases:

In United States v. Hansen, the Justices agreed to review the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i), a federal law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to encourage or cause unauthorized immigrants to enter or reside in the United States. Three years ago, the Court agreed to take up this question in another case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, but it did not resolve it. Instead, a unanimous Court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had improperly injected the issue into the case. The question returns to the court in the case of Helaman Hansen, who was convicted under Section 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) for running a program that, in exchange for fees of up to $10,000, promised to help adult unauthorized immigrants become U.S. citizens through adoption. On appeal, he argued — and a panel of the 9th Circuit agreed — that the statute violates the First Amendment because it is so broad that it would also apply to speech protected by the Constitution — for example, a statement that merely encourages someone to stay in the United States. After the 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case, the federal government came to the Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to weigh in....

In Lora v. United States, the Justices agreed to decide whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.District courts have discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute mandates otherwise. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) of Title 18, which imposes penalties for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime, specifies that sentences imposed “under this subsection” must run consecutive to other sentences. Efrain Lora was convicted and sentenced for a drug-trafficking- related murder under a different subsection, Section 924(j). Lora therefore argued that the district court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences because Section 924(j) creates an offense distinct from Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the district court was required to impose consecutive sentences because it concluded that Section 924(j) is essentially an aggravated form of the Section 924(c) offense. Lora argues that four circuit courts have reached the same conclusion as the 2nd Circuit, and at least two circuits have disagreed. The government acknowledges what it calls a “narrow conflict in the circuits as to whether [Section] 924(c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies to a conviction for the greater-included offense under [Section] 924(j).” But it argues that the issue “has limited practical importance” and notes that the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied cert on the issue.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning added three new cases to its merits docket for the 2022-23 term. The Justices considered all three cases – involving federal securities laws, the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, and the proper remedy when a defendant is tried in the wrong place – at their private conference last week. Although the Justices announced an initial set of new grants from that conference on Friday afternoon, Tuesday’s grants follow a recent pattern of issuing a second set of grants from the Court’s final regularly scheduled conference of the year.

The Justices agreed to review the case of Adam Samia – whom the federal government describes as a “hitman” who “committed an array of crimes worthy of a James Bond villain.” Samia was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the murder of Catherine Lee, a real estate agent in the Philippines. At Samia’s joint trial with his two co-defendants, prosecutors relied in part on a confession from one of the co-defendants, Carl Stillwell, who identified Samia as the person who pulled the trigger. Prosecutors redacted Stillwell’s statement so that it did not use Samia’s name, and the presiding judge instructed the jury that it could only consider Stillwell’s statement in determining Stillwell’s guilt. Samia was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to decide whether admitting Stillwell’s redacted statement, when it immediately incriminated Samia, violated Samia’s right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him.

In Smith v. United States, the Justices will take up the case of Timothy Smith, an Alabama software engineer and avid fisherman who was indicted for hacking into the website of Strikelines, a Florida company that identifies and sells the locations of artificial fishing reefs (which fisherman normally do not share). Smith was tried in the Northern District of Florida, where the company was located; he was convicted on two of the three counts on which he was indicated and sentenced to 18 months in prison and a year of supervised release. Smith argued that he was tried in the wrong place, because he lives in Alabama and the website’s servers were in the Middle District of Florida. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed with Smith that one of the counts on which he had been convicted had been tried in the wrong place. The question that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to decide involves the remedy for that mistake. Smith contends that he should be acquitted on that count and cannot be retried anywhere, while the federal government counters (and the 11th Circuit ruled) that prosecutors can try him again somewhere else.

OTHER NEWS:

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) confirmed to Bloomberg that Democrats are still considering attaching the bill to the NDAA, which Congress must approve every year to fund the military. If attaching EQUAL to NDAA fails, the Senate might instead attach it to a package of spending bills to fund the federal government that must pass by this Friday. Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for Grassley, told Bloomberg that it appears unlikely that a deal will be reached to include a measure on cocaine sentencing in the NDAA, but there might be an opportunity to include the provision in the upcoming government funding package.

Although EQUAL passed the House overwhelmingly last summer, it stalled in the Senate as Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA) proposed the SMART Cocaine Sentencing Act (S.4116), an alternative that would maintain a 2.5:1 ratio of crack to powder, and put all retroactivity decisions in the hands of the Dept of Justice. Current talks seem to be adopting Grassley’s 2.5:1 ratio. Senate Democrats have rejected Grassley’s proposal that DOJ should be the sole authority to decide which prisoners should have EQUAL’s benefits applied to their sentences retroactively.

COMMENT:

At least the Supreme Court is granting some criminal cases now. It is truly a shame that politicians are still squabbling over the crack cocaine ratio. We remember in 1995 when the Sentencing Commission proposed an Amendment to lower the ratio to 1 to 1. At the last minute, Congress stopped it and 27 years later they still can’t get it straight.

There were 6 new compassionate release motions granted this week and 4 others were granted relief for the Fair Sentencing Act/ Retroactive Sentence Reductions.

Anyone who thinks that they may qualify for compassionate release or any other remedy should request a Written Case Evaluation (we no longer offer Free Lookups). For the last 28 years, we have also been very successful on direct appeals, 2255 motions and 2241 Petitions, First Step Act, Compassionate Release Motions, DC Superior Court, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons, and Parole Packages to mention a few avenues for relief. We also can help you with Earned Time Credits and other specialized motions.

If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case Evaluation.

Request a Written Case Evaluation