In United States v. Turner The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals faced the question of conflicting rights when one member of a multi-defendant drug case was arrested after all of the other defendants had either plead of been convicted. The same lawyer who represented one of the other defendants in sentencing was hired to represent Roosevelt Turner who had recently been arrested. The United States Attorney complained about a possible conflict and the United States District Judge removed Turner’s attorney. Turner went to trial with another attorney and appealed. The appellate court reversed the conviction because Turner had been denied the attorney of his choice.

The only evidence the United States Attorney raised to show a conflict was that either Roosevelt or Anthony Womack both of whom were represented by Irl Baris might want to testify against the other or that one of them might be subpoened to testify against the other. But the appellate court said that the fact that something might happen was not enough to deny a defendant his choice of attorneys. In fact neither turned against the other or was subpoenaed to testify against the other.

Since the denial of Turner the right to the attorney of his choice is a structural error Turner is entitled to a new trial. Afterall no one could tell if he would have been convicted with a different attorney.

Heller involved Federal law since it involved the District of Columbia. Therefore the Supreme Court did not decide whether the Second Amendment limited the ability of the states and local governments to control gun ownership. The Bill of Rights originally only protected citizens from the actions of the United States government. Over time the Supreme Court has gradually decided that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the various rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights into the national law guaranteeing such rights against state and local limitations. However the Second Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court. This question will be decided in McDonald The Seventh Circuit took the traditional view following Nineteenth Century precedent in ruling that Heller is limited to Federal laws. On appeal the Supreme Court will rule whether it applies to state and local governments.

The traditional way to incorporate rights guaranteed by the bill of Rights is through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, While Allen Gura, the attorney who argued Hellerr before the Supreme Court and who will argue McDonald will argue that the Supreme Court should use the Due Process Clause to incorporate the Second Amendment, alternatively he will argue that the Court should use the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Many modern scholars believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause is the appropriate way to incorporate the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This will give us an opportunity to see whether the Supreme Court will adopt this theory.

Share/Save

During the chat room discussions “Shelly” asked Zahursky to bring condoms, and K-Y jelly . When Zahursky arrived at the Starbucks he was arrested by Moore while another agent searched his car. In the car the agent found the condoms, the jelly and directions from Zahursky’s Illinois house to the Starbucks. On appeal Zahursky challenged the search. The Court found it to be a valid search under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The automobile exception started with The Supreme Court’s decision in Carroll v. United States It allows for a search of any vehicle for which there is probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found due to the mobility of the vehicle and the decreased expectation of privacy in a vehicle. The Court found that there was probable cause that the condoms, the K-Y jelly and other evidence of interstate travel (an element of the offense) would be found in the vehicle and therefore the search was legal even though it started before it was discovered that the K-Y jelly and the condoms were not in Zahursky’s pockets.

Another issue on appeal was the admission at trial of evidence of Zahursky’s other contacts with juveniles on chat lines and the use of a witness called “SS” who Zahursky lured into have sex five years prior to the trial when “SS” was fourteen. The appellate court found the evidence appropriate. Evidence cannot be admitted solely to show bad character or a propensity to commit a crime. But the appellate court found that the trial court admitted the evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Evidence Code. Under Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible if

(1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged;
(2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue;
(3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act; and
(4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The appellate court found that the evidence was admissible to show knowledge, motive, and intent. The chat line evidence shows Zahursky’s interest in juvenile sex and therefore is admissible to show his motive in contacting “Shelly.” The numerous discussions on the chat line indicating the girls’ ages is admissible to show lack of mistake.

Zahursky argued that the chat line evidence should be excluded because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by excessively prejudicial details. But the court did not find that the chat line evidence was unduly prejudicial because Zahursky was unable to prove that as a result of the evidence the jury decided the matter on emotional grounds.

Finally the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing since the trial court erred in enhancing the sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines for unduly influencing a minor. Based on Seventh Circuit precedent the court found that the enhancement was not appropriate when the “minor” is an agent.

Share/Save

Thomas sued in Federal court on various state and Federal grounds, including violation of his Fourth Amendment and Due Process rights. He argued that under Illinois law officers had no right to prosecute individuals for failure to pay parking tickets.

The Seventh Circuit ruled that Thomas did not have standing to sue under the grounds that there was no right to arrest someone for failure to pay parking tickets since it was Joshua Tomas, not Joseph Thomas who failed to pay his parking tickets.

Thomas’ Due Process claim was that he did not receive notice that he could be arrested for not paying traffic tickets. But the Court easily denied this claim since Joseph Thomas did not have any outstanding parking tickets he would not have received notice even if the city gave such notices.

As to the Fourth Amendment claim the court citing Supreme Court decision in Atwater found that if there is probable cause for the arrest there is no Fourth Amendment violation even if there is no right to arrest the defendant under the statute.

But the problem here is that Thomas suffered a grievous wrong. He was arrested and forced to put up bail for a crime he did not commit. But there appears to be no remedy for the wrong. Usually in these cases you argue the lack of probable cause. But that’s a tough standard to meet. Without really discussing it the Seventh Circuit seems to accept that the officer had probable cause to arrest Thomas based on the fact that the warrant for Joshua Thomas had Joseph Thomas’ license number on it.

Share/Save

In the early morning hours of September 2, 2007, Fairview Heights, Illinois police officers began an investigation of Kirkland for possession of cocaine. The investigation took them to the local Ramada Inn. Using police dogs to sniff Kirkland’s vehicle which was parked at the hotel they believed that there was cocaine in the vehicle. After he came out of the hotel and started to drive the vehicle, the officers pulled him over on the pretext that they were stopping him for a cracked windshield.

While an officer was issuing Kirkland a warning, a sergeant and a DEA agent drove up. Without reading Kirkland his Miranda warnings they asked him some questions and for permission to search the vehicle. Kirkland agreed. Rifle cartridges and cocaine were found. He was arrested and 48 hours later transferred to DEA custody. Once in DEA custody he was read his Miranda rights and he took responsibility for the cocaine. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on September 4 he was taken before a magistrate.

On November 30 he (actually his attorney) filed a motion to suppress evidence. The motion did not mention the statements made to the police or the DEA. He claimed that his detention was without reasonable or probable cause and that the length of the detention was excessive. He filed a brief in support of the motion on February 1, 2008 but again did not discuss the statements. A hearing was held on February 28. At the hearing his counsel said

Regarding the statements that he ultimately makes
at the DEA office several days later, I believe those
warrant suppression as well, Your Honor, based
upon the fact that he had been in custody for over
48 hours at that point, apparently had not even had
a change of clothing. My understanding is that he
was brought to Court later that day, but not before
being interviewed at the DEA office.

The Court refused to suppress the cocaine because the search of the vehicle was supported by probable cause. The Court also refused to suppress the statements made while in Federal custody because he had been given Miranda warnings and it did not suppress the roadside statements because Kirkland (again actually his counsel) did not specify the nature of the statements.

The Fourth Amendment prevents lengthy detentions prior to an appearance before an magistrate during which peace officers can ruthlessly interrogate defendants. The Supreme Court has decided that a defendant must be taken before a magistrate for a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest. Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate that a defendant be brought immediately before a Federal magistrate and that any statement taken prior to the appearance before the magistrate but more than six hours after the arrest be excluded. Time held in local custody is excluded unless the Federal authorities colluded with the local police.

In refusing to grant the defendant’s appeal the appellate court found that Kirkland waived his right to have appellate consideration by failing to timely move to suppress the statements. Not only did Kirkland’s counsel wait until the hearing on the motion to suppress the cocaine to bring up the statements but his counsel failed to provide any legal reasoning in the motion to support the suppression of the statements. Furthermore counsel failed to meet deadlines set by the trial court for motions to suppress in that the original motion did not ask for the suppression of the statements.

The logical problem with the Seventh Circuit’s denial of the appeal is that Kirkland did not fail to meet any deadlines or to fulfill any duties. He is being punished for his counsel’s failure to meet deadlines and properly move for suppression of the statements. Presumably, although there is no indication in the appellate decision his appellate counsel (let’s hope that his trial counsel is not doing the appeal) is filing a writ of habeas corpus alleging incompetence of his trial counsel for failure to meet the deadline and for failure to move in a timely manner for suppression of the statements.

Share/Save