Atlanta Federal Criminal Attorney
Richard A. Grossman
Richard A. Grossman, Trial Attorney
66 Lenox Pointe, NE
Atlanta, GA 30324
678-358-6555
Contact Us
Archive for June, 2010
Supreme Court Limits Use of “Honest Services” Law to Bribes or Kickbacks
The Supreme Court has dealt a blow to federal prosecutors pursuing corporate executives by restricting the federal statute which makes it a crime “to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, sold a half million shares of company stock and made a profit of $15 million after allegedly lying about the financial health of the company. A few months later the company fell into bankruptcy. Skilling was convicted and sentenced to 24 years imprisonment.
Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the law must be limited to the core offenses of bribes and kickbacks. Justice Ginsburg wrote, “Because Skilling’s misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback, he did not conspire to commit honest-services fraud under our confined construction” of the law.
In another significant ruling the justices instructed the lower courts to reconsider the conviction of Conrad Black, the newspaper executive convicted of defrauding his media company, Hollinger International. In Black et. al. v. United States, the court held that its opinion in Skilling on the scope of the honest services law renders the jury instructions in Black on that law incorrect.
The decisions may have implications for cases involving politicians as well, including Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, whose trial is underway, and Joseph Bruno, a prominent New York politician who was convicted of federal corruption charges last December.
U.S. Supreme Court Eases Automatic Deportation in Minor Drug Cases
In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled that immigrants who are legally in the United States need not be automatically deported for minor drug offenses. Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo is a permanent resident of the U.S. In 2004, Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo was sentenced to 20 days in jail for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana. In 2005, he was sentenced to 10 days in jail for possession of one tablet of Xanax without a prescription.
Although both offenses were misdemeanors under state law, federal authorities argued that a second drug offense counted as an aggravated felony under federal law. Writing for seven justices, Justice Stevens said, “a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug” is at odds with the ordinary meaning of “aggravated felony” requiring deportation under 1101(a)(43).
Criminal Suspects Must Now Unambiguously Invoke Their Right To Remain Silent
The 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona has been narrowed in a 5-4 opinion by the Supreme Court. Van Chester Thompkins, Jr., was convicted of murder and is serving life in prison without parole. Thompkins was captured more than a year after the shooting that resulted in his conviction. He was questioned by detectives for almost three hours. There was no dispute he was given his Miranda warnings at the beginning of the questioning. However Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with police.
Near the end of the questioning, one officer asked Thompkins whether he believed in God and he said “yes.” The officer then asked “do you pray to God?” Again Thompkins responded “yes.” The officer asked, “do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins said “yes” and then looked away. He refused to make a written confession and he refused to sign a Miranda waiver form. The one word confession was used at Thompkins’ trial and he was convicted.
Having lost his appeal in state court, Thompkins’ conviction was eventually overturned in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which ruled that Thompkins had not waived his right to silence, The Court found that Thompkins’ continued silence through the almost three hour long interview indicated that he did not want to waive his rights.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that wasn’t enough. Kennedy concluded that “Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning’. Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”