Convicted ex-Sen. Vince Fumo wants to end federal supervised release

The title of this post comes from this PennLive article about Vince Fumo. The original article from Philly.com details the corruption charges that landed Fumo in trouble, his prison sentence, and ensuing federal supervised release.

He is now seeking early release from his federal supervised release by motioning the court through his attorney. He is not a client, but represents, in a small way, what we try to accomplish every day here at PCR Consultants.

Here is how the Philly.com article gets started:

CONVICTED FORMER state Sen. Vince Fumo is seeking an early end to his three-year term of supervised release under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Probation Office.

In a motion filed yesterday, Fumo’s lawyer, Dennis Cogan, asked U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to terminate Fumo’s three-year supervised release after more than 13 months.

“His punishments have been considerable and he has suffered much,” Cogan wrote. “He is now almost 72 years of age. His health is not good and his financial losses have been considerable.”

Fumo was convicted by a federal jury in March 2009 of 137 corruption counts.

Buckwalter had originally sentenced him to 55 months in prison and restitution of $2.3 million to the state Senate, Citizens Alliance and the Independence Seaport Museum. The feds appealed.

Fumo was ultimately sentenced to a prison term of 61 months, three years of supervised release and nearly $4 million in fines, restitution and special assessments, which he has paid in full, Cogan wrote.

Fumo served about four years in prison before being released to home confinement in August 2013 at his Spring Garden mansion on Green Street near 22nd. He received nearly eight months of credit for good behavior.

 

Federal Probation Revocation Hearings

An interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit was brought to my attention by this post by the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog entitled “Just Because It’s A Supervised Release Hearing Doesn’t Mean There Are No Rules.”

As the title suggests, federal probation revocation hearings are far less formal than a criminal trial. In fact, the rules that govern these hearings appear in only one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 32.1. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Anthony Doswell was having a bad run of luck.

He was on supervised release from the end of a federal sentence. Supervised release works a bit like probation for those who have been in prison – folks coming out of a federal prison have a period of years where they have to check in with a probation officer, be drug tested, and, if they mess up, sent back to prison.

One big way to mess up is to commit a new crime. The rub is that a person can be violated – and sent back to prison – for committing a new crime, not just for being convicted of committing a new crime.

So, it’s possible for a person on supervised release to be charged with a new crime, beat the charge, then be sent to prison anyway.

Anthony Doswell was in a spot like that. He was on supervised release and had been charged with having some marijuana on his person. He also tested positive for heroin and didn’t show up to mental health treatment, or to meet with his supervising probation officer.

At the hearing, his lawyer learned that Mr. Doswell had previously been charged with heroin distribution.

Mr. Doswell objected to a violation of his supervised release based on the heroin. The government went forward with the allegation, providing the district court with the charging documents for the state court heroin distribution charge, as well as the chemist’s report.

The government did not call any witnesses.

The district court found that Mr. Doswell had violated his supervised release by selling heroin. As the Fourth Circuit summarized it,

Without explanation, the district court concluded that, “notwithstanding the objection,” the drug analysis report was “sufficient to support the [heroin] violation alleged.” Accordingly, the court found Doswell guilty of the heroin violation set forth in Supplemental Notice, a violation that the court concluded, “in itself, [wa]s sufficient for . . . a mandatory revocation [of Doswell’s supervised release].” The court then sentenced Doswell to the statutory maximum, twenty-four months of imprisonment.

On appeal, the only issue the Fourth Circuit dealt with, in United States v. Doswell, was whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2), Mr. Doswell had a right to have the witnesses against him testify.

The government argued that under a prior Fourth Circuit case, and the general principle that revocation hearings are less formal, it didn’t have to have a witness there.

Mr. Doswell, instead, suggested the court of appeals look at the language of Rule 32.1(b)(2), which says that at a revocation hearing, a person has an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear

Since the district court spent exactly no time balancing whether the interests of justice didn’t require the chemist to testify against Mr. Doswell, the Fourth Circuit reversed the finding of violation and remanded.

We don’t do many posts on revocation hearings here, but the issue is important to both the federal process and our clients. If you have any questions regarding revocation (and especially how to avoid them) please give us a call at (480) 382-9287.

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 []