Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-guidelines, 48-month term of incarceration on charge of illegal reentry into U.S. after having been deported, even though Dist. Ct. did not base said sentence on defendant’s claim that he should have received more substantial reduction due to fact that Northern District of Illinois did not have “fast-track” program of imposing shorter sentence in exchange for prompt guilty plea. Ct. rejected defendant’s claims that prosecutor misled him into believing that govt. would not oppose fast-track sentence, or that Dist. Ct. was under misimpression that Supreme Ct. precedent precluded it from imposing reduced, fast-track sentence. Ct. further observed that defendant failed to show that he would have been eligible for fast-track status given fact that he waited four months after indictment to plead guilty and only conditionally waived any appellate rights.

In prosecution on drug possession and related firearms charges, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized from his home pursuant to search warrant after conducting “pre-Franks” hearing used by Dist. Ct. to evaluate defendant’s claim that officers obtained search warrant through use of false information that had been either deliberately or recklessly supplied to court that issued said warrant. Defendant is entitled to full Franks hearing since he presented sufficient evidence at pre-Franks hearing to show that information contained in application for instant warrant was false where: (1) officers sought similar warrant that described defendant’s alleged drug activities but contained wrong address for defendant’s home just hours before seeking instant warrant that contained same information about defendant’s drug activities but correct address; and (2) officers failed to inform judge about statements made in prior search warrant application. Moreover, Dist. Ct. improperly allowed govt. to explain said discrepancies in warrant applications at pre-Franks hearing without defendant having opportunity to fully cross-examine govt. witnesses.

Defendant’s habeas petition, seeking vacatur of her fraud conviction arising out of her guilty plea on grounds that her counsel failed to advise her that her conviction could result in her deportation, was untimely where it was filed more than one year after date in which defendant’s conviction became final, and more than one year after date that defendant could have discovered facts supporting her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ct further noted that defendant’s counsel informed defendant prior to entry of her guilty plea that her guilty plea might have “immigration consequences,” which, Ct. found, was sufficient to put defendant on notice of possible removal.

In prosecution on drug charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing expert witness to testify regarding his opinion that latent fingerprint on taped bag of heroin matched patent fingerprint known to be defendant’s. Ct. found that expert’s method of matching fingerprints was sufficiently reliable under Rule 703, even if said method was not infallible. Defendant also was not deprived of fair trial when said trial was delayed 11 days by mandamus proceeding that resulted in mid-trial reassignment of case to different judge following appellate reversal of suppression order that had originally been entered in favor of defendant, even though defendant argued that said delay and reassignment posed risk that jury might draw erroneous inference from replacement of district judge.