DOCSLIB.ORG

Primer on Drug Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Primer on Drug Guidelines PRIMER DRUG GUIDELINES March 2020 Prepared by the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission Disclaimer: This document is intended to assist in understanding and applying the sentencing guidelines. The information in this document should not be considered definitive or comprehensive. In addition, the information in this document does not represent an official Commission position on any particular issue or case, and it is not binding on the Commission, the courts, or the parties in any case. To the extent this document includes unpublished cases, practitioners should be cognizant of Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, as well as any corresponding rules in their jurisdictions. Primer on the Drug Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. DRUG STATUTES .......................................................................................................................... 1 A. THE STATUTORY SCHEME ....................................................................................................... 1 B. LEGAL ISSUES ........................................................................................................................... 2 1. Aggregating Quantity .............................................................................................. 2 2. Enhanced Penalties ................................................................................................. 3 C. LESSER OFFENSES .................................................................................................................... 4 III. CHAPTER TWO OFFENSE GUIDELINE SECTIONS ............................................................... 4 A. APPLICABLE OFFENSE GUIDELINE SECTION IS DRIVEN BY OFFENSE OF CONVICTION ........... 4 B. SECTION 2D1.1 (UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURING, IMPORTING, EXPORTING, OR TRAFFICKING (INCLUDING POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO COMMIT THESE OFFENSES); ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) ........................................................................................................................... 5 1. Determining the Base Offense Level ................................................................. 5 2. Drug Type ................................................................................................................... 8 3. Drug Quantity .......................................................................................................... 13 C. SELECTED SPECIFIC OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................. 21 1. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 21 2. Section 2D1.1(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 24 3. Section 2D1.1(b)(5) .............................................................................................. 24 4. Section 2D1.1(b)(7) .............................................................................................. 24 5. Section 2D1.1(b)(11) ............................................................................................ 25 6. Section 2D1.1(b)(12) ............................................................................................ 25 7. Section 2D1.1(b)(13) ............................................................................................ 25 8. Section 2D1.1(b)(14) ............................................................................................ 26 9. Section 2D1.1(b)(15) ............................................................................................ 26 10. Section 2D1.1(b)(16) ............................................................................................ 26 11. Section 2D1.1(b)(17) ............................................................................................ 27 12. Section 2D1.1(b)(18) ............................................................................................ 27 D. CROSS REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 27 1. Murder ....................................................................................................................... 27 2. Crime of Violence ................................................................................................... 27 E. APPLICATION ISSUES FOR SPECIFIC DRUGS .......................................................................... 28 1. Cocaine ...................................................................................................................... 28 2. Marijuana.................................................................................................................. 29 3. Methamphetamine ................................................................................................ 30 4. LSD .............................................................................................................................. 32 ii Primer on the Drug Guidelines IV. OTHER OFFENSE GUIDELINE SECTIONS ............................................................................ 32 A. SECTION 2D1.2 (DRUG OFFENSES OCCURRING NEAR PROTECTED LOCATIONS OR INVOLVING UNDERAGE OR PREGNANT INDIVIDUALS; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) ............ 32 B. SECTION 2D1.8 (RENTING OR MANAGING A DRUG ESTABLISHMENT; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) .................................................................................................................... 33 C. SECTION 2D1.10 (ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE WHILE ILLEGALLY MANUFACTURING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) ...................................................... 33 D. SECTION 2D1.11 (UNLAWFULLY DISTRIBUTING, IMPORTING OR POSSESSING A LISTED CHEMICAL; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) ............................................................................... 34 E. SECTION 2D1.12 (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORTATION, EXPORTATION, OR IMPORTATION OF PROHIBITED FLASK, EQUIPMENT, CHEMICAL, PRODUCT, OR MATERIAL; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY) .................................... 36 F. SECTION 2D2.1 (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION; ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY)............................ 36 V. SELECTED RELEVANT CONDUCT ISSUES SPECIFIC TO DRUG CASES ........................ 36 A. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY AND RELEVANT CONDUCT .................................................. 36 B. PRIOR CONVICTIONS AND RELEVANT CONDUCT ................................................................... 37 C. BASE OFFENSE LEVELS IF DEATH RESULTS .......................................................................... 38 D. PERSONAL USE QUANTITIES AND RELEVANT CONDUCT ...................................................... 39 VI. SENTENCING MANIPULATION/ENTRAPMENT ................................................................ 40 A. GUIDELINES REMEDIES FOR SENTENCING MANIPULATION/ENTRAPMENT ......................... 40 1. Application Note 5 to §2D1.1 ............................................................................. 40 2. Application Note 27(A) to §2D1.1 .................................................................... 40 B. OTHER SENTENCING MANIPULATION/ENTRAPMENT .......................................................... 41 C. LIMITS ON SENTENCING MANIPULATION/ENTRAPMENT ..................................................... 42 VII. CHAPTER THREE: ADJUSTMENTS ........................................................................................ 42 A. ROLE ADJUSTMENTS .............................................................................................................. 42 B. ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST OR USE OF A SPECIAL SKILL ................................................ 42 C. USING A MINOR TO COMMIT A CRIME ................................................................................... 43 1. Section 3B1.4 - "Using" of Minor to Commit Crime .................................... 43 2. Section 3B1.4 - Use of Minor and Defendant's Age ..................................... 44 VIII. CHAPTER FOUR: CRIMINAL HISTORY, CAREER OFFENDER, AND ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL (ACCA) ..................................................................................................... 44 iii Primer on the Drug Guidelines IX. CHAPTER FIVE: DETERMINING THE SENTENCE ............................................................. 46 A. STATUTORY PENALTY RANGES REVISITED: APPRENDI ........................................................ 46 1. Statutory Maximum Sentence ........................................................................... 46 2. Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentences ................................................... 47 B. RELIEF FROM MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: THE "SAFETY VALVE" ......................... 48 1. The Statutory and Guideline Conditions ....................................................... 49 2. Section 5C1.2(b) ..................................................................................................... 53 3. Safety Valve and §2D1.1(b)(17)........................................................................ 53 4. Safety Valve and Departures/Variances ........................................................ 53 C. DOWNWARD DEPARTURES FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES: §5K1.1 ... 53 X. CHAPTER SIX: SENTENCING PROCEDURES AND PLEA AGREEMENTS ..................... 54 A. PLEA AGREEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Identity Theft Literature Review
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Identity Theft Literature Review Author(s): Graeme R. Newman, Megan M. McNally Document No.: 210459 Date Received: July 2005 Award Number: 2005-TO-008 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. IDENTITY THEFT LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared for presentation and discussion at the National Institute of Justice Focus Group Meeting to develop a research agenda to identify the most effective avenues of research that will impact on prevention, harm reduction and enforcement January 27-28, 2005 Graeme R. Newman School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany Megan M. McNally School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark This project was supported by Contract #2005-TO-008 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 14 1940 Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J. Wirt Turner Jr. University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Turner, J. Wirt Jr. (1940) "Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 29 : Iss. 1 , Article 14. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol29/iss1/14 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KENTUCKY LAw JOURNAL In conclusion, it is submitted that the felony murder doctrine in Kentucky is based on the same principles as the negligent murder doctrine, since to convict a defendant of murder for a death occuring during the commission of a felony there must first be a felony dangerous to life and, secondly, the death of the victim must be the necessary or natural consequence of the felony. J. GRiANVILLE CLARK CRIMINAL LAW-CONSPIRACY AND THE FELONY MURDER DOCTRINE IN KENTUCKY* Defendant was indicted jointly with two others for the crime of wilful murder by setting fire to a house and burning a child to death. The evidence showed that defendant was not near enough to aid and abet in the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Misprision of a Felony Is Not a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
    DePaul Law Review Volume 69 Issue 1 Fall 2019 Article 5 Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Alexandra Carl Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra Carl, Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, 69 DePaul L. Rev. 143 (2020) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol69/iss1/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\D\DPL\69-1\DPL105.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-FEB-20 12:14 MISAPPRISING MISPRISION: WHY MISPRISION OF A FELONY IS NOT A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE INTRODUCTION Immigration is an area of American law in which archaic terminol- ogy and hyper-technical statutory interpretation collide with human lives. The results can be arbitrary, absurd, or tragic. Noncitizens’ be- havior is scrutinized, categorized, and judged according to different standards than those that citizens must meet or even consider, and the consequences can be disproportionately devastating. One illustrative example is the immigration law term “crime involving moral turpi- tude” (CIMT). This antiquated term is not officially defined, nor does any list of crimes definitively involving moral turpitude exist. There are no “crimes involving moral turpitude” outside of immigration law, so citizens never need to evaluate whether their behavior may or may not be legally turpitudinous.
    [Show full text]
  • Obstruction of Justice: Unwarranted Expansion of 18 U.S.C
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 102 | Issue 1 Article 2 Winter 2012 Obstruction of Justice: Unwarranted Expansion of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) Sarah O'Rourke Schrup Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Sarah O'Rourke Schrup, Obstruction of Justice: Unwarranted Expansion of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 25 (2013). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol102/iss1/2 This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/12/10201-0025 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 102, No. 1 Copyright © 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: UNWARRANTED EXPANSION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1512(C)(1) SARAH O’ROURKE SCHRUP* This Article suggests that prosecutors are misusing and courts are misinterpreting the Sarbanes–Oxley obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). As a result, the statute is being applied far beyond the corporate fraud or even general fraud context to conduct that Congress never intended to punish with this statute. Such an expansive interpretation lays bare the ambiguity inherent in the statutory language. A proper statutory construction that explores the statute itself, related provisions, canons of construction, the legislative history, and the investigatory process at the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Congress could not have intended the limitless sweep of the statute that some courts and prosecutors have fashioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug-Related Crime
    NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice R T A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C IJ S R E BJ G O OJJDP O F PR Bureau of Justice Statistics JUSTICE Drugs & Crime Data September 1994, NCJ–149286 Fact Sheet: Drug-Related Crime Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways. Most This fact sheet will focus on the second and third catego- directly, it is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or ries. Drug-related offenses and a drug-using lifestyle are distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse. major contributors to the U.S. crime problem. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines are examples of drugs classified to have abuse potential. Drug users in the general population are more Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they likely than nonusers to commit crimes have on the user’s behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug traffick- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ing. The following scheme summarizes the various ways (HHS) National Household Survey on Drug Abuse asks that drugs and crime are related. individuals living in households about their drug and alcohol use and their involvement in acts that could get Summary of drugs/crime relationship them in trouble with the police. Provisional data for 1991 show that among adult respondents (ages 18–49), those Drugs and crime who use cannabis (marijuana) or cocaine were much more relationship Definition Examples likely to commit crimes of all types than those who did Drug-defined Violations of laws Drug possession or offenses prohibiting or reg- use.
    [Show full text]
  • From Overdose to Crime Scene: the Incompatibility of Drug-Induced Homicide Statutes with Due Process
    PHILLIPS IN PRINTER FINAL 11/16/2020 7:39 PM FROM OVERDOSE TO CRIME SCENE: THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF DRUG-INDUCED HOMICIDE STATUTES WITH DUE PROCESS KAITLIN S. PHILLIPS† ABSTRACT As the opioid epidemic ravages the United States, federal and state legislators continue to seek various ways to mitigate the crisis. Though public health advocates have successfully pushed for harm-reduction initiatives, a contrasting punitive response has emerged. Across the country, prosecutors and legislators are turning to drug-induced homicide (“DIH”) statutes as a law-and-order response to the crisis. DIH statutes, which can carry sentences as severe as life in prison, impose criminal liability on anyone who provided drugs that led to a fatal overdose. Though DIH laws are often justified as tools to target large-scale drug distributors, in reality, they more often target friends or family of the deceased. Troublingly, despite the foundational criminal law principle that intent is required to impose culpability, DIH laws are strict liability offenses, requiring no intent toward the resulting death. Examining the development of strict liability offenses in the American legal system, this Note asserts that criminal intent—mens rea—is an indispensable due process protection in homicide law. It argues that DIH laws, though not facially unconstitutional, are functionally anti-constitutional—inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of due process. This Note is the first to reconcile DIH statutes with the broader context of strict liability criminal jurisprudence, contending that these laws impose punishment far in excess of the culpability they require. Accordingly, it calls upon state legislatures to repeal or amend these laws, offering various frameworks to better align DIH statutes with the protections required for criminal defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: the STATE of MIND CRIME-INTENT, PROVING INTENT, and ANTI-FEDERAL Intentt
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1976 Criminal Conspiracy: The tS ate of Mind Crime - Intent, Proving Intent, Anti-Federal Intent Paul Marcus William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Marcus, Paul, "Criminal Conspiracy: The tS ate of Mind Crime - Intent, Proving Intent, Anti-Federal Intent" (1976). Faculty Publications. 557. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/557 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: THE STATE OF MIND CRIME-INTENT, PROVING INTENT, AND ANTI-FEDERAL INTENTt Paul Marcus* I. INTRODUCTION The crime of conspiracy, unlike other substantive or inchoate crimes, deals almost exclusively with the state of mind of the defendant. Although a person may simply contemplate committing a crime without violating the law, the contemplation becomes unlawful if the same criminal thought is incorporated in an agreement. The state of mind element of conspiracy, however, is not concerned entirely with this agreement. As Dean Harno properly remarked 35 years ago, "The conspiracy consists not merely in the agreement of two or more but in their intention."1 That is, in their agreement the parties not only must understand that they are uniting to commit a crime, but they also must desire to complete that crime as the result of their combination. Criminal conspiracy, therefore, involves two distinct states of mind. The first state of mind prompts the conspirators to reach an agreement; the second relates to the crime that is the object of the agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors
    Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors December 2006 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3594 Frank J. Marine, Consultant Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief Robert C. Dalton Merv Hamburg Gregory C.J. Lisa Melissa Marquez-Oliver David J. Stander Catherine M. Weinstock Cover Design by Linda M. Baer PREFACE This manual is intended to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation and litigation of cases involving the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) early in the preparation of their case for advice and assistance. All pleadings alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 including any indictment, information, or criminal complaint, and a prosecution memorandum must be submitted to OCRS for review and approval before being filed with the court. The submission should be approved by the prosecutor’s office before being submitted to OCRS. Due to the volume of submissions received by OCRS, prosecutors should submit the proposal three weeks prior to the date final approval is needed. Prosecutors should contact OCRS regarding the status of the proposed submission before finally scheduling arrests or other time-sensitive actions relating to the submission. Moreover, prosecutors should refrain from finalizing any guilty plea agreement containing a Section 1959 charge until final approval has been obtained from OCRS. The policies and procedures set forth in this manual and elsewhere relating to 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Counteracting Identity Fraud in the Information Age: the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 8 Article 5 Issue 3 Spring 1999 Counteracting Identity Fraud in the Information Age: The deI ntity Theftnd a Assumption Deterrence Act Kurt M. Saunders Bruce Zucker Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Saunders, Kurt M. and Zucker, Bruce (1999) "Counteracting Identity Fraud in the Information Age: The deI ntity Theftnd a Assumption Deterrence Act," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 8: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol8/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COUNTERACTING IDENTITY FRAUD IN THE INFORMATION AGE: THE IDENTITY THEFT AND ASSUMPTION DETERRENCE ACT Kurt M. Saunders and Bruce Zuckert identity, n; .. .2. (a) the condition or fact of being some specific person...; individuality; (b) the condition of being the same as . someone assumed, described, or claimed.' ABSTRACT The advent of the information age has created new challenges to the ability of individuals to protect the privacy and security of their personal information. One such challenge is that of identity theft, which has im- posed countless hardships upon its victims. Perpetrators of this fraud use the identities of others to steal money, obtain loans, and generally violate the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Murder in Families
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Murder in Families By John M. Dawson • When a son killed a parent, his victim and Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. July 1994 was about as likely to be the mother as the BJS Statisticians father: 47% mothers versus 53% fathers. The United States has over 3,000 But when a daughter killed a parent, her A survey of murder cases disposed counties, but more than half of all victim was more likely to be the father than in 1988 in the courts of large urban murders occur in just 75 of them, the the mother: 81% fathers versus 19% counties indicated that 16% of murder Nation’s mort populous jurisdictions. mothers. victims were members of the defendant's This report taps a rich source of murder family. The remainder were murdered by data — prosecutors’ files in a sample of • In murders of persons under age 12, the friends or acquaintances (64%) or by these large urban places — for detailed victims' parents accounted for 57% of the strangers (20%). These findings are drawn information on the nature and extent of murderers. from a representative sample survey of a particular type of murder: those that State and county prosecutors' records. occur within families. In addition, the • Eleven percent of all victims age The survey covered disposed charges report uses these files justice systems 60 or older were killed by a son or against nearly 10,000 murder defendants, respond to family murder.
    [Show full text]
  • 9Th Circ. Raises the Bar on Misprision of a Felony by Andrew Goldsmith
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] 9th Circ. Raises The Bar On Misprision Of A Felony By Andrew Goldsmith Law360, New York (June 23, 2017, 12:28 PM EDT) -- When special counsel Robert Mueller began his work last month, he may have been surprised to learn the Ninth Circuit had added a new element to one of the potential crimes within his jurisdiction just two days before his appointment. In United States v. Olson, the court held that misprision of a felony requires a defendant to know the crime he or she is concealing is a felony.[1] Apparently, no other court has considered the possibility of such a requirement in the 227 years since the crime was codified. Despite this critical change, Olson gives little guidance on how to prove, for example, that a defendant knew that a private citizen could be sentenced to more than a year in prison for corresponding with a foreign government to influence that government or to undermine the United States. The Andrew Goldsmith potential implications are not limited to cases under the purview of the special counsel’s office. In cases involving low-level or little-known underlying felonies, this new element may convert the most widely applicable obstruction statute, carrying among the lowest sentences for such a crime, into the most difficult to prove. Misprision of a Felony English law recognized “a duty to raise the ‘hue and cry’ and report felonies to the authorities” as early as the 13th century.[2] The first Congress codified misprision in 1790, and today’s 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]