Dan Starck

By Dan Starck

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Pepper v. United States on December 6^th.  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pepper-v-united-states. The central issue is the Eight Circuit’s ban on consideration of post-sentencing behavior during resentencing.  For Jason Pepper, the upshot of the Eight Circuit’s decision is a forced return to prison for the same crime years after his release.

 Pepper pled guilty to a federal drug conspiracy charge in 2004.  The Federal Sentencing Guidelines suggested a sentence of 97 to 121 months based on the nature of the crime and circumstances.  The government moved for a 15% sentence reduction based on Pepper’s “substantial assistance” during the investigation. The trial judge went one step further and sentenced Pepper to 24 months in prison with a five year supervised release based on Pepper’s strong family support, future potential, and likelihood of successful rehabilitation. 

The trial judge’s appraisal came to fruition.  Pepper was a Bureau of Prisons success story. He served two years in prison where he successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program and had no subsequent criminal history.  After his release, he graduated college, started a family, and found a steady job

By Dan Starck

http://kempton.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/no-miranda-rights-in-canada-supreme-court/

The Supreme Court of Canada declined to import U.S. Miranda warnings.  In R. v. Sinclair, the Court reasoned that adopting Miranda would frustrate investigations, slow down the criminal justice system, and create a constitutional right to have an attorney present during police interrogations.  Underlying the majority opinion was the belief that detained individuals could make a meaningful choice about cooperation absent a formal declaration of their right to not cooperate.  This concern for administration of justice and skepticism of Miranda’s necessity to the exercise of individual rights mirrors the sorts of criticisms of Miranda in the U.S.  The Canadian Supreme Court’s decision signals those criticisms may be gaining traction.  With its recent tilt to the right, U.S. Supreme Court may become more receptive.

Kagan to Oversee Emergency Appeals for the 6th and 7th Circuits

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202472967027&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=Law.com%20Newswire%20Update&cn=LAWCOM_NewswireUpdate_20101006&kw=Kagan%20to%20Oversee%20Emergency%20Appeals%20for%206th%20and%207th%20Circuits

October 6, 2010

Thompson v. Connick; Jury Awards 14 Million Dollars to Man Who Served 18 Years in Prison for Crime he Did Not Commit After Prosecutors Hid Favorable Evidence

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/october10/09.htm  

October 9, 2010

US to drop Jim Clark corruption conviction

http://www.adn.com/2010/10/08/1492937/us-attorneys-office-agrees-to.html

The U.S. Attorney’s Office has agreed to drop the corruption conviction of Jim Clark, Frank Murkowski’s former Chief of Staff.  Clark pled guilty in 2008 to a corruption charge.  The Supreme Court has since narrowed the scope of the law used to convict clark.  Prosecutors agreed to toss out Clark’s conviction in light of that Supreme Court ruling.  However, the terms of Clark’s plea-bargain remain in force.  He is expected to cooperate in future corruption investigations or face new charges.

By Dan Starck