United States v. Kevin M. Slade, No. 08-4932 (Decided Jan. 27, 2011).
In an opinion filed yesterday (available here), the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a case for sentencing where a district court erroneously applied an aggravating leadership enhancement to a defendant in a drug conspiracy.
At the time of sentencing, the district court applied a three-level enhancement to the defendant's guidelines calculation because of his aggravating role as a manager or supervisor of other participants in the drug conspiracy. (U.S.S.G. 3B1.1). This enhancement is reserved for defendants who "control the activities of other participants" or exercise managerial responsibility.
The district court applied the enhancement, to which the defendant did not object, on the basis of the following factors: the defendant sold powder and crack cocaine to other co-conspirators (who in turn sold it to others), the defendant was driven around by a co-conspirator during the course of the drug conspiracy, and some of the co-conspirators sold drugs "for" the defendant. However, the Fourth Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence in the record that the defendant actually directly supervised anyone, or managed the operations.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case for re-sentencing, at which time the district court will have the opportunity to find facts that may increase the defendant's sentencing exposure under this enhancement, anyway.
Posted by Brennan Sullivan and McKenna
Friday, January 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Maryland High Court Affirms Common Law Prohibition on Improper Inducements
Enoch Jermaine Hill v. State of Maryland, No. 149, September Term, 2009 (Maryland Court of Appeals) (Filed Jan. 26, 2011).
In an opinion filed today (available here), the Court of Appeals held that a detective's statement to a suspect constituted an improper inducement. The case was one of child sexual abuse, where a former youth pastor was the suspected abuser and the victim was a former member of the pastor's congregation.
During an interrogation, a detective told the suspect that the victim "and his mother do not want to see you get into trouble, but they only want an apology." Believing the detective was hinting that if he wrote an apology note, the suspect would not be further prosecuted, the suspect wrote a (nonsensical) letter of apology to the victim. Because the suspect in the case relied on the indirect inducement, the suspect's subsequent confession and letter of apology will be inadmissible in a new trial.
This case is important in that it reaffirms the place that Maryland's common law prohibition on improper inducements has in today's justice system.
Posted by Brennan Sullivan and McKenna
In an opinion filed today (available here), the Court of Appeals held that a detective's statement to a suspect constituted an improper inducement. The case was one of child sexual abuse, where a former youth pastor was the suspected abuser and the victim was a former member of the pastor's congregation.
During an interrogation, a detective told the suspect that the victim "and his mother do not want to see you get into trouble, but they only want an apology." Believing the detective was hinting that if he wrote an apology note, the suspect would not be further prosecuted, the suspect wrote a (nonsensical) letter of apology to the victim. Because the suspect in the case relied on the indirect inducement, the suspect's subsequent confession and letter of apology will be inadmissible in a new trial.
This case is important in that it reaffirms the place that Maryland's common law prohibition on improper inducements has in today's justice system.
Posted by Brennan Sullivan and McKenna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
