Criminal Law

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on charge of unlawful possession of firearm, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. improperly allowed govt. expert to testify that subject gun had been manufactured in Connecticut so as to satisfy interstate commerce element of said offense. Defendant did not challenge expert’s qualifications to give expert testimony, and expert could properly testify that manager of Connecticut plant that manufactures guns had confirmed that subject gun was made in manager’s plant. Fact that said manager did not testify at trial did not require different result.

In proceeding to determine defendant’s competency to assist counsel in defense of transmitting interstate threats charge, Dist. Ct. erred in entering order under 18 USC section 4241(d)(2)(A) that defendant should be committing for medical treatment, including involuntary medication, for purposes of making defendant able to attain capacity to permit criminal proceedings to go forward. Dist. Ct. failed to provide required explicit findings that established: (1) importance of govt. interest in subjecting defendant to course of medical treatment without making preliminary finding regarding any potential sentence; (2) likelihood that proposed course of treatment would render defendant competent to stand trial and would subject him to deleterious side effects; (3) lack of existence of less intrusive alternatives to proposed involuntary drug treatment; and (4) appropriateness of proposed course of treatment in view of defendant’s diagnosis and personal medical history.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of evidence from car in which defendant was passenger. While defendant argued that officer lacked probable cause to stop said vehicle, Dist. Ct. could properly believe officer who stated that subject car was traveling at speed of between 60 and 64 m.p.h. and was traveling within two seconds of braking distance in violation of Indiana statute prohibiting cars from traveling too closely to another vehicle. Moreover, officer had probable cause to search defendant after he smelled burnt marijuana when defendant lowered car’s window and after he observed bits of marijuana in car. Fact that officer did not summon nearby police dog to confirm presence of marijuana in vehicle prior to conducting instant search did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 180-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge, where said sentence was based in part on finding that defendant was armed career criminal due to his three prior convictions for robbery, domestic battery and resisting law enforcement officer. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that his Indiana conviction for domestic battery did not qualify as “violent offense” for purpose of establishing his armed career criminal status, after Ct. noted that said offense involved conduct that presented serious potential risk of physical injury to another individual.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, defendant waived issue on appeal as to whether Dist. Ct. erred in denying his motion to continue his trial, where defendant entered into blind guilty plea that precluded defendant from raising said issue on appeal. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that said plea was not knowing or voluntary, because he was not specifically informed at his guilty plea colloquy that his guilty plea would preclude him from raising any pre-trial issues, where Ct. noted that Rule 11(b)(1) did not require Dist. Ct. to inform defendant of such consequence. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in basing defendant’s sentence in part on two-level enhancement for maintaining stash house under section 2D1.1(b)(2) of USSG, where said enhancement was not in effect at time of defendant’s offense. (Partial dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 23-year term of incarceration on mail fraud and corrupt impediment of IRS charges stemming from defendant’s Ponzi scheme that involved net losses to investors and IRS of approximately $40 million. While defendant argued that new sentencing hearing was required where Dist. Ct. failed to explicitly state why his mitigation evidence that concerned the fact that he entered into guilty plea and had assisted govt. in exposing instant scheme did not warrant lower sentence, Dist. Ct. could hold reasonable belief that devastating financial harm to victims, that averaged approximately $100,00 per victim, overwhelmed all of defendant’s arguments in mitigation. Moreover, although instant sentence was longest possible under instant plea agreement, remand was not required where record otherwise indicated that Dist. Ct. was aware of defendant’s mitigation arguments, but did not find them convincing. Also, downward departure under section 5K2.16 of USSG did not apply even though defendant had voluntarily disclosed existence of scheme, since Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s disclosure was motivated by fact that discovery of scheme was imminent. (Dissent filed.)