DOCSLIB.ORG

Back to Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Back to Basics Back to Basics Common Issues in Bond, Sentencing and Revocation Hearings. Overview ▪ Evidentiary / Procedural Issues in the context of: – Detention Hearings – Sentencing Hearings – Revocation Hearings Detention Hearings Detention Hearings ▪ The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing. 18 U.S.C. §3142(f). ▪ Rule 1101(d)(3) exempts bail hearings from the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See FED. R. EVID. 1101(d)(3). Detention Hearings ▪ Hearsay Evidence is Admissible. ▪ Gov’t and Defense may proceed by Proffer ▪ 5th Circuit Cases – United States v. Fortna, 769 F. 2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985) – United States v. Parker, 848 F. 2d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1998) Detention Hearings ▪ U.S. v. Fortna, 769 F. 2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985) – Hearsay evidence inadmissible at trial does not necessarily mean that such information cannot form the basis for a pretrial detention determination. – Hearsay evidence or other evidence inadmissible at trial can be used to make the “probable cause” determination, a necessary predicate for cases where the presumption of detention arises. – Hearsay evidence can be used in the court’s consideration of section 3142(g) factors: ▪ Nature and circumstances of the offense; ▪ Weight of the evidence against the defendant; ▪ History and characteristics of the defendant; and ▪ Nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community if released. Detention Hearings ▪ U. S. v. Parker, 848 F. 2d 61 (5th Cir. 1988) – Bail hearing does not compel a criminal defendant to testify in violation of the fifth amendment – Defendant need not personally testify because he may present evidence through hearsay or by proffer. Detention Hearings – Confronting Witness ▪ Does a Defendant have a right to confront adverse witnesses at bond hearing? ▪ Confronting adverse witnesses: Is it a right or is it conditional- defense has a right to cross examine witness if there is a dispute over the proffered information. ▪ Purpose for calling the witness – – Will witness give favorable information? – Is the goal to use detention hearing as a “discovery tool?” – Is there good cause for the Government’s failure to produce the adverse witness? Detention Hearing – Prior Witness Stmt ▪ Prior statements of witnesses who testify at a detention hearing must be disclosed pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 26.2(g)(4). ▪ Rule 46(j) provides for production of witness statements at a “detention hearing held under 18 U.S.C. §3142. ▪ However, the right to production of witness statement granted by Rule 26.2 applies “unless the court for good cause rules otherwise.” Detention Hearings – Miscellaneous ▪ 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) – timing of detention hearing – Hearing shall be held immediately upon first appearance unless a continuance requested – Except for good cause, ▪ A defendant’s request for a continuance shall not exceed 5 days. ▪ The Government’s request for a continuance shall not exceed 3 days. Detention Hearings – Flight Risk ▪ Preponderance Standard: – More likely than not that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonable assure the presence of the defendant at future court proceedings. Detention Hearing - Danger ▪ Clear and Convincing Standard – Assurance of community safety by clear and convincing evidence. Detention Hearings ▪ Appeal of an Order of Detention – 18 U.S.C. §3145(b) – Motion “to revoke or amend” the magistrate’s order. – Hearing de novo before the district court. Sentencing Hearings Sentencing Hearings ▪ Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing. FRE 1101(d)(3) ▪ Courts may consider sentencing information that has a “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. §6A1.3(a) ▪ The preponderance of the evidence standard is used to resolve any sentencing disputes, and relevant information may be considered whether or not it is admissible at trial. U.S.S.G. §6A1.3 Sentencing Hearings - Presentence Investigation Reports Sentencing – Presentence Investigation Report ▪ Undisputed information in the PSR may be accepted by the court as an admission. Inaccuracies must be objected to in a timely manner. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(A). ▪ Courts must explicitly rule on any disputed portion of the presentence report or any other matter in controversy, unless the court finds that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect the sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(B). Sentencing - Presentence Report ▪ The defense is provided an opportunity to comment on the report (file objections) and, in the discretion of the court, introduce testimony or other information relating to any alleged factual inaccuracy. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(2), 32(i)(4)(A). ▪ Probation Officer Comment: Acknowledge Receipt of the PSR. Sentencing - Presentence Report ▪ Defendant’s obligation to present contradictory evidence: – U.S. v. Reasor, 541 F. 3d 366 (5th Cir. 2008). ▪ The presentence report is considered reliable evidence for sentencing purposes. ▪ If no relevant affidavits or other evidence is submitted to rebut the information contained in the PSR, the court is free to adopt its findings without further inquiry or explanation. ▪ “[T]he way in which Reasor committed her offenses makes a precise loss calculation difficult and she submitted no evidence to show that the information in the PSR was materially untrue.” ▪ The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the PSR is inaccurate. ▪ Unsworn assertions by the defendant are unreliable and not to be considered. Sentencing ASK FOR A SHORT CONTINUANCE SO GOVERNMENT ▪ Hypothetical – CAN PROVIDE – You have objected to a “fact” listed in the PSR. Government callsSTATMENT a witness to testify on the “fact.” The witness has given a prior statement that was never provided to you. – WHAT DO YOU DO? SEEK EXCLUSION OF WITNESS TESTIMONY CROSS EXAMINE WITHOUT STATEMENT? Sentencing ▪ FED. R. CRIM. P. 26.2 applies to any witness who testifies at the sentencing hearing, and if the party producing a witness fails to comply with Rule 26.2’s disclosure obligations, the court is precluded from considering the witness’s testimony. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(2). Sentencing ▪ Should we object to “facts” that do not impact the length of a defendant’s sentence? ▪ https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008.pdf Revocation Hearings Revocation Hearings ▪ Revocation Proceedings are governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. ▪ Person may be released or detained. – If detained, defendant bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the community. ▪ Person entitled to a prompt preliminary hearing to determine probable cause to detain a person for a revocation hearing. Revocation Hearings ▪ Due process protections apply to revocation proceedings. ▪ Revocation proceedings must be conducted according to principles of fundamental fairness. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972): – Written notice of the allegations; – Disclosure of the evidence against him; – Opportunity to be heard and present evidence; – Neutral hearing; and – Written findings addressing the evidence relied on and reasons for revocation. Revocation Hearings - Discovery ▪ Rule 32.1(b)(2) provides that a defendant facing a supervised release revocation is entitled to “disclosure of the evidence against the person.” ▪ In general, discovery rights at revocation hearings appear to be limited to evidence that will actually be used to prove the violation. ▪ Favorable evidence should be requested in a timely fashion prior to the revocation hearing. ▪ Jencks Act codified in Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 does apply in the supervised release revocation context. Revocation Hearings – Rules of Evidence ▪ Federal Rules of Evidence generally do not apply in probation or supervised revocation proceedings. ▪ Federal Rule of Evidence 1101(d)(3) states that the rules of evidence do not apply in proceedings granting or revoking probation. ▪ Court may consider reliable hearsay in deciding whether to revoke supervised release. United States v. Stephenson, 928 F. 2d 728, 732 (6th Cir. 1991). Revocation Hearings – Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause ▪ The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to revocation proceedings. ▪ The admission of hearsay evidence during a revocation hearing may violate a defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses. ▪ The government must demonstrate good cause to deny the right of confrontation. ▪ The court must balance the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses with the government’s reasoning for denying that right. – Failure to do so is error. Revocation Hearings – It’s a Balancing Test ▪ The court must balance the defendant’s constitutional interest in confrontation and cross examination against the government’s stated reasons for denying them. ▪ A finding of reliability is not alone sufficient to support its admission under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). ▪ The defendant’s interest must be balanced against the government’s reasons. Revocation Hearings – Unique Issue ▪ Revocation sentencings do not incorporate all of the §3553(a) factors. – A court may not consider “the need for the sentence imposed … to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” – A court may sanction a violator for his “breach of trust,” not for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fundamentals of Constitutional Courts
    Constitution Brief April 2017 Summary The Fundamentals of This Constitution Brief provides a basic guide to constitutional courts and the issues that they raise in constitution-building processes, and is Constitutional Courts intended for use by constitution-makers and other democratic actors and stakeholders in Myanmar. Andrew Harding About MyConstitution 1. What are constitutional courts? The MyConstitution project works towards a home-grown and well-informed constitutional A written constitution is generally intended to have specific and legally binding culture as an integral part of democratic transition effects on citizens’ rights and on political processes such as elections and legislative and sustainable peace in Myanmar. Based on procedure. This is not always true: in the People’s Republic of China, for example, demand, expert advisory services are provided it is clear that constitutional rights may not be enforced in courts of law and the to those involved in constitution-building efforts. constitution has only aspirational, not juridical, effects. This series of Constitution Briefs is produced as If a constitution is intended to be binding there must be some means of part of this effort. enforcing it by deciding when an act or decision is contrary to the constitution The MyConstitution project also provides and providing some remedy where this occurs. We call this process ‘constitutional opportunities for learning and dialogue on review’. Constitutions across the world have devised broadly two types of relevant constitutional issues based on the constitutional review, carried out either by a specialized constitutional court or history of Myanmar and comparative experience. by courts of general legal jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Proffer Agreements
    BAR OURNAL J FEATURE States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York provides: [T]he Office may use any statements made by Proffer Agreements Client: (A) to obtain leads to other evidence, which evidence may be used by the Office in any stage of a criminal prosecution (including What Is Your Client Waiving but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing), civil or administrative proceeding, (B) as substantive evidence to and Is It Worth the Risk? cross-examine Client, should Client testify, and (C) as substantive evidence to rebut, directly or indirectly, any evidence offered or elicited, BY JOHN MCCAFFREY & JON OEBKER or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of Client at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, our client is the target of a federal a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible trial or sentencing).(Emphasis added.) investigation. He is offered the against the defendant. It is well-settled that the In practice, the particular language of these opportunity to speak with prosecutors protections afforded under these rules can be agreements determines what triggering events Yand investigators so that they have “his side” waived in proffer agreements, thus opening the open the door to the admission of a client’s of the story before determining whether door for a client’s statements to be used against proffer statements at trial. For example, in charges will be pursued. You may ask yourself, him at trial. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th “What do I have to lose?” Well, the answer is U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Record
    Chapter Seven: Preserving the Record Edward G. O’Connor, Esquire Patrick R. Kingsley, Esquire Echert Seamans Cherin & Mellot Pittsburgh PRESERVING THE RECORD I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE RECORD. Evidentiary rulings are seldom the basis for a reversal on appeal. Appellate courts are reluctant to reverse because of an error in admitting or excluding evidence, and sometimes actively search for a way to hold that a claim of error in an evidence ruling is barred. R. Keeton, Trial Tactics and Methods, 191 (1973). It is important, therefore, to preserve the record in the trial court to avoid giving the Appellate Court the opportunity to ignore your claim of error merely because of a technicality. II. PRESERVING THE RECORD WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS LET IN YOUR OPPONENT’S EVIDENCE. A. The Need to Object: 1. Preserving the Issue for Appeal. A failure to object to the admission of evidence ordinarily constitutes a waiver of the right to object to the admissibility or use of that evidence. Taylor v. Celotex Corp., 393 Pa. Super. 566, 574 A.2d 1084 (1990). If there is no objection, the court is not obligated to exclude improper evidence being offered. Errors in admitting evidence at trial are usually waived on appeal unless a proper, timely objection was made during the trial. Commonwealth v. Collins, 492 Pa. 405, 424 A.2d 1254 (1981). The rules of appellate procedure are meant to afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct any mistakes that have been made before these mistakes can be a basis of appeal. A litigator will not be allowed to ambush the trial judge by remaining silent at trial and voice an objection to the Appellate Court only after an unfavorable verdict or judgment is reached.
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Coming to a Court Hearing, What Do I Need to Know?
    Where will my hearing take place? When will the judge make a decision? ISLEISLE OFOF MANMAN The hearing may take place in any of the court- The judge will normally tell you what decision has COURTS OF JUSTICE rooms, which have equipment to record the pro- been reached when all the evidence has been given. ceedings. A written copy of the decision (an ‘order’) will be sent I am coming to a court hearing, to you after the hearing. The order will not set out what do I need to know? HCG07 The judge decides if the hearing will be held either: the reasons for the decision. The judge may tell you Claimant guidance in the Small Claims Procedure • in public – members of the public are allowed to do something, such as pay money to the other to be present at the hearing if there is sufficient party or begin preparing your evidence for trial, as room; or part of the decision. • in private – generally, only the people involved You should carry out the instructions when you are in the case (called the parties), their witnesses told to do so and not wait until the written order ar- and advocates can be present at the hearing. rives. What happens at the hearing? If the judge needs more time to reach a decision you The judge will normally want to hear first from the will be sent a notice telling you the time, date and claimant (the person who started the case, or place the decision will be given. This is called made the application) then the defendant (the per- ‘reserving judgment’.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond People V. Castro: a New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 18 1991 Beyond People v. Castro: A New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting John Caleb Dougherty Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation John C. Dougherty, Beyond People v. Castro: A New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting, 7 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 269 (1991). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol7/iss1/18 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND PEOPLE V. CASTRO: A NEW STANDARD OF ADMISSIBILITY FOR DNA FINGERPRINTING Forensic science' employs a wide range of identification techniques2 in an effort to link physical evidence to a particular individual. Forensic serolo- gists3 attempt to identify suspects from traces of blood, semen, saliva, or urine.4 The most recent and potentially greatest contribution to forensic sci- ence is DNA typing.5 The so-called "DNA fingerprint"6 has evolved from the fields of molecular biology, chemistry, and population genetics,7 and of- fers a new and potentially more precise way to establish the identity of 1. Forensic science in its broadest definition is the application of science to law. As our society has grown more complex it has become more dependant on rules of law to regulate the activities of its members. Forensic science offers the knowledge and technology of science to the definition and enforcement of such laws.
    [Show full text]
  • The Adjudication Hearing
    Chapter 8 The Adjudicatory Hearing Summary of Contents This chapter explores the requirements for “informal but orderly” adjudicatory hearings under the Juvenile Act. • § 8-1. The Adjudicatory Hearing in General • § 8-2. Best Practices • § 8-3. Timing of Hearings • § 8-4. General Conduct of Hearings • § 8-5. Hearings Conducted by Juvenile Court Hearing Officers • § 8-6. Public Attendance at Hearings • § 8-7. Hearing Procedures • § 8-8. Admissions • § 8-9. Consent Decrees • § 8-10. Trauma-Informed Court Process and Procedures • § 8-11. Ensuring the Rights of Victims • § 8-12. Accommodating Young Witnesses Key Statutes • 42 Pa.C.S.§6302 (definitions) “Assessment” “Screening” “Sexual violence” • 42 Pa.C.S. §6310 (parental participation) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6335 (release or holding of hearing) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6336 (conduct of hearing) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6336.2 (use of restraints on children during court proceedings) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6337.1 (right to counsel for children in dependency and delinquency proceedings) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6338 (other basic rights) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6339 (investigation and report) • 42 Pa.C.S. §6340 (consent decree) 8.1 • 42 Pa.C.S. §6341 (adjudication) • 18 P.S. §11.201 (victim attendance rights) Rules1 • Rule 120, Pa.R.J.C.P. (definitions) “Advanced Communication Technology” “Destroy or Destruction” “Expunge or Expungement” • Rule 122, Pa.R.J.C.P. (continuances) • Rule 127, Pa.R.J.C.P. (recording of hearings) • Rule 128, Pa.R.J.C.P. (presence at proceedings) • Rule 129, Pa.R.J.C.P. (appearance by advanced communication technology) • Rule 131, Pa.R.J.C.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Judicial Process in Foster Care Cases
    FOSTER CARE COURT PROCESS Review of the Judicial Process in Foster Care Cases 1. Probable Cause 2. Adjudication Hearing A probable cause hearing must be held Within 30 to 60 days of the probable cause within 5 working days of issuing the hearing, an adjudication hearing will be emergency order. The court will decide if held to decide if the child is dependent/ the child should be returned home, stay in neglected (this means abused or neg- the temporary custody of DCFS, or live with lected). If it is determined that the child is someone else until the adjudication hearing. not dependent/neglected, the child will be The court has the authority to place children returned home, and there will no longer be with relatives at this hearing, if the court is a court case or involvement with DCFS. given evidence and it is in the child’s best interest. Court Review 4. Permanency Planning Hearing 3. Review Hearing The court must decide on a plan for The court will continue to hold review permanent placement for the child. hearings (at least every 6 months, but These options include in the order of usually more often) throughout the case to preference: (1) returning the child to make sure that everyone is following the his parents or guardians (or putting a court orders and DCFS case plans, to see short–term plan in place to return the how the child is doing, to find out what child home), (2) terminating the progress the family is making to improve parental rights so that the child can be the child’s home situation, whether the adopted by someone else, or (3) right kind of services are being provided for giving guardianship or permanent the family and the child, and if the child custody to another adult.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Morantz (Page 13) Abank in the Village Last Year, Has We Launched a Major and Aggres- Fire Scares Within a Week of Each Plead Guilty to Four Bank Robberies
    Palisadian-Post Serving the Community Since 1928 24 Pages Thursday, March 15, 2018 ◆ Pacific Palisades, California $1.50 Let’s Play Ball! Amazon Books Heading to Palisades Village By SARAH SHMERLING is an area “that we know is full of leased, with Amazon Books the Managing Editor readers.” 18th confirmed tenant. Palisadians have not turned At the three Amazon stores he next chapter of Caruso’s the pages at a local store since Vil- currently in California titles are laid Palisades Village has been lage Books closed its doors in June with covers rather than spines out. Twritten: Amazon has signed up to 2011, despite a fierce fight by -lo At the flagship store in Seattle, create a “bricks and mortar” store cals, including Tom Hanks, to save which stocks 6,000 books initially when the project opens on Sept. 22. it. chosen through its “social cata- “We created Amazon Books to Other retailers at the loging” website Goodreads, there be a place where customers discov- 125,000-square-foot complex will has been a list of recommended er books and devices they’ll love,” include SunLife Organics, Vintage volumes by Amazon founder Jeff Cameron Janes, vice president of Grocers and Cinépolis’ Bay The- Bezos. Amazon Books, told the Los Ange- atre. It includes his wife MacKenzie les Times. Caruso reported that 80 percent Tuttle Bezos’ Hollywood thriller He also noted that the Palisades of the 40-plus spaces have been “Traps.” Big, Worried Crowd for Safety Town Hall Councilmember Mike Bonin takes on questions. Rich Schmitt/Staff Photographer By CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA cars was a relief, as the impending Pali High, ensured parents that Reporter threat by the California regulators the school is increasing security to eliminate local beach’s mid- measures as the consideration of a oncerned for safety, privacy night-to-5 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES' JAMES PROFFER PURSUANT to RULE 801(D)(2)(E) ______
    Case 1:07-cr-00090-WYD Document 146 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 07-cr-00090-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. B&H MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., a New Mexico corporation; 2. JON PAUL SMITH a/k/a J.P. SMITH; and 3. LANDON R. MARTIN, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES' JAMES PROFFER PURSUANT TO RULE 801(d)(2)(E) ______________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the Court's Order of November 13, 2007, the United States submits the following proffer supporting admission of coconspirator statements pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. I. Introduction Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendants with violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conspiring to rig bids submitted to BP America Production Company ("BP America") for the construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from its wells in the Upper San Juan Basin in Colorado to elsewhere in the United States. The conspiracy began in or about June 2005 and continued until December 2005. In order to assist the Court in its preliminary determination of the admissibility of Case 1:07-cr-00090-WYD Document 146 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 2 of 27 coconspirator statements at trial, the United States submits this proffer, which will outline some of the evidence the United States intends to present at trial.1 Section II of this proffer provides a brief overview of the conspirators, the victim of the conspiracy, and the bid rigging conspiracy charged in Count One of the Indictment.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Macon Division
    Case 5:08-cr-00040-HL -CHW Document 284 Filed 02/11/09 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : v. : : BERRIEN AND LISA SUTTON, : Criminal Action No. : 5:08-CR-40(HL) Defendants. : : : ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Berrien Sutton’s Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 95). For the following reasons, Sutton’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted only to the extent that Sutton seeks to prohibit the Government from directly using against him statements he made after April 2007. The Government can still make derivative use of all statements given after April 2007. I. BACKGROUND Berrien Sutton is currently under Indictment for conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and multiple counts of mail fraud. The charges against Sutton arise out of a federal investigation into allegations of official corruption in the Alapaha Judicial Circuit in South Georgia. Before being indicted, Sutton met with federal investigators and prosecutors on several different 1 Case 5:08-cr-00040-HL -CHW Document 284 Filed 02/11/09 Page 2 of 8 occasions to provide information that would assist them in their investigation. The dates of those meetings were (1) December 14, 2006, (2) January 1, 2007,1 (3) March 12, 2007, (4) March 29, 2007, (5) May 9, 2007, and (6) May 22, 2007. In his Motion to Suppress Statements, Sutton moves to suppress all statements he made to the federal authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • LEGAL TERMS and DEFINITIONS the Following Definitions Will Make It Easier for You to Understand These Common Legal Words And
    LEGAL TERMS AND DEFINITIONS The following definitions will make it easier for you to understand these common legal words and phrases which will occur frequently during the course of the trial: Action, Case, Suit, Lawsuit: These words refer to a legal dispute brought into court for a hearing or trial. Parties: The plaintiff and defendant in the case - also called the “litigants.” Cause of Action: The legal grounds on which a party to a lawsuit relies to get a verdict against his opponent. Complaint: The first pleading in a civil case stating facts and demanding relief. Indictment: The indictment or information is the written document used to inform the defendant that he has been charged with a crime. Answer: A pleading filed with the court before the trial by the defendant in a civil case in which he answers or denies claims of the plaintiff. Counterclaim: A “counterclaim” results when the defendant, in his answer to the complaint, claims that he is entitled to damages or other relief from the plaintiff. Issue: A disputed question of fact which you must decide is referred to as an “issue.” Pleadings: All the documents filed by the parties before the trial to establish what issues must be decided by the jury. Deliberations: The discussions of the jury which occur after the judge has instructed you to retire to the jury room and consider your verdict. Opening Statement: Before introducing any evidence for his side of the case, a lawyer is permitted to tell the jury what the case is about and what evidence he expects to bring in to prove his side of the case.
    [Show full text]