Appeal Waivers and Supervised Release

Federal Plea Agreements

The Devil is in the Details

Over 95% of federal defendants plead guilty, according the the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Because of Bill Otis, Law Professor and contributor to Crime and Consequences, most plea agreements now come with appeal waivers: a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal.

On the surface, at least to this blogger, the waiver of appeal would bar any appeal of conviction and sentence (except for maybe the habeas writ from 18 U.S.C. §2255). What about the imposed terms or conditions of Supervised Release? Are you barred from appealing or moving to change these?

This is one of those times that it really matters where you are convicted.

The Fifth Circuit – Out of Luck

From US. v. Scallon and Findlaw’s 5th Circuit Blog:

Unlike Cooley v. United States, in which the Fifth Circuit ruled that a waiver of appeal didn’t bar a defendant from appealing if he was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” there were no altered guidelines for supervised release in Scallon’s case.

Signing a plea agreement and waiver of appeal may get your client out of jail faster — or help him avoid jail altogether — but it also means he waives his right to appeal. Make sure your plea-bargaining clients understand that “waiver of appeal” is more than just terminology; in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s binding on both the sentence and the supervised release terms.

The Third Circuit – Have at It

From U.S. v. Wilson and Findlaw’s 3rd Circuit Blog we get the opposite answer:

When a criminal defendant waives his right to appeal, the courts take him at his word that he is, in fact, waiving appeals.

A lot of the defendants don’t think that “waiving appeal” means what the courts think it means (Inconceivable!) and they appeal anyway. It usually doesn’t work. But a Third Circuit concluded this week that a waiver of appeal did not bar an appeal of an order modifying the terms and conditions of supervised release.

So there it is, a circuit split that helps some but not others. If you’re surprised at the 5th Circuit’s conservative reading of appeal waivers, then you must be new to the game. Anybody willing to take bets on the 9th?

Update: Fricosu, The 10th Circuit, and the 5th Amendment

U.S. v. Fricosu

2/23/12 – As we previously discussed in this post, the government wants to force the defendant in the above-titled case to turn over an unencrypted hard drive that may or may not have incriminating evidence in it. The district judge granted the governments motion to force the defendant to supply the hard drive. This decision was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, who refused to rule.

Note: Demanding an actual password violates the 5th Amendment protections. The presiding judge in Colorado side-stepped this issue by not requiring Fricosu to give up her password but, instead, requiring her to produce the decrypted hard drive by using her password.

Because the appeals court chose to let the case run its course in the lower court before allowing the issue here to be raised on appeal, the ruling stands and Fricosu has until Monday to turn over the unencrypted version (read: a copy) of her laptop hard drive.

The Future

This case has frightening implications on the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The process will get rocky. Fricosu can refuse to produce the hard drive1 and face contempt charges,2, or she can comply and face conviction if the incriminating material that the prosecution believes is on the hard drive is actually there.

If she complies and is convicted3, only then can she appeal her conviction to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the order to produce the hard drive that directly led to her conviction.

Updates will be posted as they come in!

  1. If she is able to. Her defense attorney says she may not have the capabilities to even comply with the order []
  2. Under rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure []
  3. Where that conviction is predicated primarily upon the evidence from the unencrypted hard drive []

Judges speak against the “War on Drugs”

Life without Parole for Selling Drugs

In a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concurring opinion, Judge Davis wrote what many judges, including the sentencing judge in the district court below in this case, have expressed about the mandates for sentencing incumbent in the “War on Drugs”.

It is said so well in Judge Davis’ concurring opinion that I will simply get out of his way and post an excerpt below. The entire opinion is a good read if you are interested in federal sentencing policy-insanity.

The distinguished district judge was aghast that the now forty-year-old Tony Gregg would spend the rest of his life in federal prison for selling small amounts of crack cocaine over a period of several weeks out of a hotel room in a run-down section of Richmond…

[P]rior to trial, Gregg was offered a plea agreement for a twenty-year sentence; when he rejected the government’s offer, the government went all out for the life sentence found to be unjust by the district court. Of the government’s four non-law-enforcement witnesses at the one-day trial below, all four were women who were themselves, like Gregg, users and sellers of crack cocaine and heroin who worked with Gregg to sell crack cocaine.

Understandably, perhaps, to many, Gregg is not a sympathetic figure; they will think: he got what he deserved. To many others, perhaps, matters are not so clear. Indeed, many would say that Tony Gregg seems to be one more of the drug war’s “expendables.” See Nora V. Demleitner, “Collateral Damage”: No Re-Entry for Drug Offenders, 47 Vill. L. Rev. 1027, 1050 (2002).

This case presents familiar facts seen in courts across the country: a defendant addicted to narcotics selling narcotics in order to support his habit. Unfortunately for Gregg and countless other poorly-educated, drug-dependant offenders, current drug prosecution and sentencing policy mandates that he spend the rest of his life in prison….

The mass incarceration of drug offenders persists into the second decade of the twenty-first century despite the fact that research consistently demonstrates that the current approach to combating illegal drug use and drug trafficking is a failure…. Even the U.S. drug czar, a position created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, admits the war on drugs is failing, stating that after 40 years and $1 trillion, “it has not been successful … the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.” Martha Mendoza, After 40 Years and $1 Trillion, Drug Use Is Rampant and Violence Pervasive, Associated Press, May 13, 2010.

I share the district judge’s dismay over the legallymandated sentence he must impose in this case. While the controlling legal principles require us to order the reimposition of a sentence of life without parole in this case, the time has long passed when policymakers should come to acknowledge the nation’s failed drug policy and to act on that acknowledgement.

As a nation, we are smart enough to do better.