The Federal Public Defender's Office for the Central District of Illinois provides its own Listserv email service. By subscribing to this free service, you will receive email notification of recent decisions of the Seventh Circuit and United States Supreme Court, important legislative changes, Administrative Office of the United States Courts announcements, and other issues of interest to CJA Panel Attorneys and federal criminal defense practitioners. You may also post messages or questions to other members of the group, subject to review by the Listserv Administrator, as well as reply to the posts and questions of other group members.
If you would like to subscribe, all you need to do is send an email to the following address: FPD_ILCemail@example.com. You do not need to put anything in the subject line or body of the email address. Just send a blank email to the address listed. You will then receive an email from the Listserv Group asking that you confirm your request to join the group. To confirm, simply reply to that email and your subscription will be complete.
If at anytime you wish to unsubscribe to this Listserve and stop receiving emails, simply send an email to the following address: FPD_ILCfirstname.lastname@example.org.
I hope you will take advantage of this tool and subscribe today. If you have any questions or have difficulty subscribing, please call or email our Listserv Administrator, Chief Federal Public Defender Jonathan Hawley at (309) 671-7891 or email@example.com.
Linked here is a Memorandum of Law drafted by Peter Henderson of our office on the Buyer-Seller law in the Seventh Circuit. You may find this useful in your drug-conspiracy cases. To read the Memorandum, click HERE.
The 6th edition (pdf) of the Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges, a publication of the Federal Judicial Center, is now available online. The book, last updated in 2007, is a concise and practical guide to situations federal judges are likely to encounter on the bench. The Benchbook covers procedures that are required by statute, rule or case law, with detailed guidance from experienced trial judges. And although new judges may benefit the most from the Benchbook, even experienced judges may find useful reminders about how to deal with routine matters, suggestions for handling more complex issues, and helpful starting points in new situations.
The 6th Edition includes a primer on a prosecutor's duty to disclose favorable information to defendants under Brady v. Maryland. There's a new section on civil pretrial case management focusing on the judge's role as an active case manager, and a completely revised section on sentencing, which contains an extensive colloquy for the sentencing hearing. There also are subsections on handling disruptive or dangerous defendants, and expanded jury instructions on the use of social media. Due to budgetary constraints, this edition of the Benchbook is published in electronic format only.
You can access the book by clicking HERE.
In United States v. Peterson, No. 12-2484 the Seventh Circuit recently held that the Constitution does not compel disclosure to defendant of the probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation, but the court offered its view that “our federal sentencing procedures might be better served by allowing the parties to evaluate any analysis that might form the basis of a judicial determination.” As those who attended our recent seminar in Urbana know, there was a great deal of discussion of this issue among the defense bar. It is unclear how or if any of the judges in in the Central District of Illinois will follow the recommendation made in Peterson. However, Judge Mills this week issued a standing order stating that the general rule for cases under consideration by him is that the recommendation will not be disclosed. To read the order, click HERE.
The Seventh Circuit on February 8, 2013, in United States v. Foster, No. 12-2699, held that there is no authority for CJA funds to be used to pay counsel to represent defendants who file 3582(c)(2) petitions. This is the only court to have ever held as such. In other words, attorneys can only accept pro bono appointments in these cases. It is not even clear if Federal Public Defender offices may accept such appointments. If you have a voucher to submit on a 3582(c)(2) petition, this case will prevent you from getting paid. Likewise, the district courts no longer have authority to appoint you in 3582(c)(2) cases. This decision is a disaster, and we, along I am sure with the other Federal Defender offices in this Circuit, will do what we can to change this outcome if possible.
As those practicing in the Central District of Illinois know, potential special conditions of supervised release are not set forth in the PSR. Rather, they are listed in a letter to defense counsel by probation. That practice is now changed as follows:
For cases where the PSR has already been prepared, the judge will ask defense counsel at sentencing if he received the letter from probation, whether he discussed it with his client, and whether he has any objection to the proposed special conditions of supervised release. For PSRs in the future, any contemplated special conditions of supervised release will be set forth in the PSR.
For some time now, the Probation Office in the Central District of Illinois has been stating the guideline range for a supervised release term in SORNA cases is “5 years to life.” As argued in Goodwin and conceded by the government, the correct guideline range is 5 years—not “5 years to life.” This, if the judge imposes a supervised release term in excess of 5 years, that constitutes a variance which must be justified on the record by the judge.
In cases where the guideline range for supervised release is stated incorrectly in the PSR, probation intends to note at sentencing that the range is incorrect. All future PSRs should contain the correct range.
On December 7, 2012, the statutory maximum for possession of child pornography went from 10 to 20 years. This new maximum would not apply to offenses committed before the date of enactment. The law also created a new offense of harassing or intimidating a child victim. To read the statute, click HERE.
In Peugh v. United States, No. 12-62), the Supreme Court finally agreed to consider the following issue: "Whether it is a violation of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto clause for a federal judge to impose a criminal sentence based on federal Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, if that sentence is longer than the Guidelines had specified at the time the crime was committed?" The Seventh Circuit in United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2006) hold that after Booker, the Ex Post Facto Clause no longer applies to the Guidelines. This holding has been contradicted by several other circuits, and the Supreme Court will finally resolve the split. Follow this link to read the pleadings in the case, including an excellent Amicus Brief filed by the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peugh-v-united-states/
At the direction of the United States Attorney, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of Illinois has instituted a Fast Track Policy for a limited group of illegal re-entry cases, effective March 1, 2012. To view the policy, CLICK HERE.
Email firstname.lastname@example.org with
questions or comments about this web site.