Sunday, December 21, 2014

For drug crime defendants, sentencing can be a crapshoot

from latimes.com


Dec 20, 2014

Noah Kleinman


Noah Kleinman faced his moment of reckoning: Should he tell a federal judge his marijuana dispensaries were just a front to distribute bulk marijuana and make hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or stick to his claim of innocence?
Kleinman, a 39-year-old salesman from Studio City, had been convicted of six felony counts related to marijuana distribution in June.
Now at his sentencing at the downtown federal courthouse, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright said he was inclined to go with the prosecutors' recommendation of 17 1/2 years in federal prison — devastating news for a father of two young children.
He fretted over his kids playing too many video games; now he'd be all but taken from their lives.
But Wright was known to change his mind, and reduce sentences, in cases where defendants seemed sincere and working in earnest to right their wrongs.
Kleinman's attorney, J. Raza Lawrence, couldn't help him now. The only question was whether Kleinman could help himself.
As 23 states have passed laws allowing medical marijuana and public opinion nationwide has swung in favor of legalization, federal agents have largely eased off the war on weed. In Colorado, where recreational cannabis is legal, businesses have sold many tons of it openly with no federal crackdown. But agents still come down hard on marijuana distributors they deem are working outside the system.
The punishments can be stiff. A San Clemente man who secretly controlled nine dispensaries was sentenced last year to 21 years and 10 months in federal prison.
Kleinman could have taken a deal prosecutors had offered him: plead guilty in exchange for a recommendation of 10 years in prison. His first attorney, Harland Braun, told him that was his only choice, given mandatory minimum sentences. But Kleinman hired new attorneys, Lawrence and Allison Margolin, and took the extremely risky move of going to trial in federal court despite having openly sold marijuana in his stores.
Even after his conviction, he had arrived on a Monday morning this month expecting he'd qualify for a loophole in the mandatory-sentencing law because he had no criminal record, and he contended he was not a ringleader in the operation, which was centered at his Noho Caregivers shop in North Hollywood. His attorneys were arguing for 15 months in prison. They hoped he might just get probation.
But the judge — a former U.S. Marine and sheriff's deputy from Alabama — quickly dashed that hope, saying evidence and testimony showed that he was a mastermind of the business.
Kleinman's prospects were looking dim.
Wright dismantled Lawrence's claim that the marijuana operation was nonprofit. The judge said emails between Kleinman and his business partner showed they were planning to net $194,000 each a month. He shot down the claim that Kleinman thought he wasn't breaking the law. "Are you trying to defend those shipments to New York and Philadelphia in hollowed-out computers?"
Wright dismissed the argument that since federal prosecutors were allowing people in states that legalized marijuana to sell mass quantities of the drug, even though it violated federal law, it would be unfair to give a huge sentence to someone committing similar federal violations in California.
And he shut down the suggestion that since public opinion was quickly changing, his sentencing should reflect that. "I can't make rulings against a political backdrop," Wright said. "That won't happen here."
Wright wanted to hear from Kleinman directly.
"I've already read the arguments," the judge said. "Those are predictable.... From my point of view, the most important point of view is the defendant's."
Wright could still change his mind and sentence him to the mandatory minimum of 10 years.
Kleinman had already filed a written statement, begging for forgiveness and saying his children needed him. He skirted the issue of his guilt, saying, "What started out as a way to help people became something I am not proud of."
Lawrence told the judge his client would just rely on the written statement.
"Mr. Kleinman, I understand what they're going to say," the judge said. "I'm offering you this opportunity. If you don't want to use it, I'll go with what I got."
It was his only hope for leniency.
Kleinman conferred with Lawrence and then stood up to the microphone, overweight in a gray suit and rimless glasses. His voice caught. His brow shone with sweat. "Speak from your heart, Noah," called out his longtime girlfriend — the mother of their two children.
"I'd like to thank you for hosting me in your courtroom," he started. He said how much he loved his children, how he worked as a salesman for a business that fixes people's tax problems, how he was No. 1 in sales this month. He said he just wanted to be a good citizen now.
Regarding the case, he said there were things that didn't come up during the trial and that "I did not have full responsibility."
Wright's expression remained impassive. Kleinman said nothing more than he had written.
Kleinman's girlfriend, Voula Lambropoulos, asked to speak. Wright motioned her to the lectern, where her words poured out in unrestrained desperation. "Our children, they adore their father.... He has low self-esteem. He is not a leader. He is a follower who chose to follow the wrong people, who led him here today."
She told how he was bullied and terrorized by a neighbor as a teenager and how he had never gotten over it.
"Even if I have to serve time, so he can be with his children, I would do it. I would do it. Our 7-year-old doesn't even know about this, because I was so ashamed.... I plead to you, aside from what everyone says here. I do not live a lavish life. Family is what matters. Please, please, please, I beg of you, please be as lenient as possible. I just want to keep this family together. I came from a broken family. I missed out on a father. I don't want that."
Wright's face tightened at her obvious pain. He thanked her as she took her seat. People in the gallery wiped tears.
The judge took a deep breath and sentenced Kleinman to 17 years and 7 months in federal prison. At the earliest, he could be released in 15 years with good behavior.
Wright said the sentence was too big to risk releasing him on bail pending his appeal. "You are remanded to the custody of the U.S. marshal and Bureau of Prisons."
Kleinman took off his tie and belt, and his hands were cuffed behind his back.
Lambropoulos' mouth hung open in disbelief.
She tried to kiss and hug him as marshals led him away. "Voula, I love you and the kids."
Twitter: @joemozingo
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times




Sunday, November 30, 2014

Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

from fox





SCOTUS1.jpg


Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.
But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.
Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pa., was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.
In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.
Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.
One post about his wife said, "There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."
The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.
"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Liberties Union and other groups.
"I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."
- lyrics posted by Anthony Elonis
But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.
For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."
Elonis claims he was depressed and that his online posts under the pseudonym "Tone Dougie" were a way to vent his frustration after his wife left him and he lost his job working at an amusement park. His lawyers say the posts were heavily influenced by rap star Eminem, who has also fantasized in songs about killing his ex-wife.
But Elonis' wife testified that the comments made her fear for her life.
After she obtained a protective order against him, Elonis wrote a lengthy post mocking court proceedings: "Did you know that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?"
A female FBI agent later visited Elonis at home to ask him about the postings. Elonis took to Facebook again: "Little agent lady stood so close, took all the strength I had not to turn the bitch ghost. Pull my knife, flick my wrist and slit her throat."
Elonis was convicted of making threats of violence and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.
The Obama administration says requiring proof that a speaker intended to be threatening would undermine the law's protective purpose. In its brief to the court, the Justice Department argued that no matter what someone believes about his comments, it does not lessen the fear and anxiety they might cause for other people.
"The First Amendment does not require that a person be permitted to inflict those harms based on an unreasonable subjective belief that his words do not mean what they say," government lawyers said.
The National Center for Victims of Crime, which submitted a brief supporting the government, said judging threats based on the speaker's intent would make stalking crimes even more difficult to prosecute.
"Victims of stalking are financially, emotionally and socially burdened by the crime regardless of the subjective intent of the speaker," the organization said.
The case is Elonis v. United States, 13-983.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Ray Rice eligible to play after winning appeal of NFL suspension

from usatoday









out
running back Ray Rice is free to sign with a new team. USA TODAY Sports
 6792 562 4LINKEDIN 125COMMENTMORE
A neutral arbitrator has overturned Ray Rice's indefinite suspension from the NFL, ruling that the disgraced running back did not mislead Commissioner Roger Goodell, who made an "arbitrary" decision to increase Rice's suspension from two games based on no new evidence.
The 17-page ruling issued Friday by Barbara S. Jones, a former federal judge, and obtained by USA TODAY Sports means Rice is eligible to play immediately if a team signs him.
It's also a blow to Goodell, who has been under heavy fire for months for his mishandling of domestic violence cases, is locked in a battle with the players' union over changes to the personal conduct policy and had portions of the punishment he handed down in the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal two years ago overturned as well.
"We respect Judge Jones's decision to reinstate Ray Rice from his indefinite suspension for violating the league's Personal Conduct Policy in an incident of domestic violence," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement. "Ray Rice is a free agent and has been eligible to be signed by an NFL team since he was released by the Ravens. Based on Judge Jones' decision, he will be eligible to play upon signing a new contract."
Rice, 27, initially was suspended two games for a domestic violence incident involving his then-fiancée at an Atlantic City casino in February. The NFL made it an indefinite suspension and the Ravens cut him after video surfaced in September of Rice punching out the woman.
In a statement Rice said, "I would like to thank Judge Barbara Jones, the NFL Players Association, my attorneys, agents, advisors, family, friends and fans - but most importantly, my wife Janay. I made an inexcusable mistake and accept full responsibility for my actions. I am thankful that there was a proper appeals process in place to address this issue. I will continue working hard to improve myself and be the best husband, father and friend, while giving back to my community and helping others to learn from my mistakes."
In the appeal, the NFLPA argued, among other things, that Rice was subjected to double jeopardy based on the same set of facts and had his due process rights under the collective bargaining agreement violated. The NFL argued the video was new evidence.
"This decision is a victory for a disciplinary process that is fair and transparent," the NFLPA said in a statement. "This union will always stand up and fight for the due process rights of our players.
"While we take no pleasure in seeing a decision that confirms what we have been saying about the Commissioner's office acting arbitrarily, we hope that this will bring the NFL owners to the collective bargaining table to fix a broken process. It is clear that this decision should force the NFL to embrace neutral arbitration as part of a necessary due process in all cases."
Earlier this month, Jones oversaw two days of testimony in Rice's appeal hearing. Rice, his wife, Janay Rice, Goodell and Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome were among the people to testify.
In February, Rice and,Janay, were charged with simple assault. The Atlantic City prosecutor's office later dropped the charge against her. In March, Rice was indicted by a grand jury on the more serious charge of third-degree assault. The charge carried a potential sentence of three to five years in prison. After the indictment, Rice and Janay married.
In May, Rice entered a program for first-time offenders that would clear his record of the criminal charge if he met certain conditions, including participation in counseling.
On July 24, Goodell announced Rice would be suspended for two games once the regular season began. The punishment was heavily criticized as too lenient and sparked a series of changes within the league with how it handles domestic abuse.



Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Famed pathologist Wecht says it's impossible to tell if husband poisoned Pittsburgh doctor

from fox






A renowned pathologist testified he could not determine whether a neurologist was fatally poisoned by her husband, a University of Pittsburgh medical researcher on trial for criminal homicide.
Dr. Cyril Wecht said he reached that conclusion based on conflicting blood test results and evidence that Dr. Autumn Klein's death could have been due to another cause, such as a heart problem.
"You've got a mixed batch and that's what leads me at this point and today to the conclusion that it's undetermined," Wecht said, when asked about the cause and manner of Klein's death.
Wecht was among the last defense witnesses being called Wednesday, the 10th day of testimony in the trial of Dr. Robert Ferrante, 66.
Allegheny County prosecutors say Ferrante laced his 41-year-old wife's energy drink with cyanide in April 2013, moments before she fell suddenly ill in their kitchen. She died three days later.
Previous testimony has suggested Klein was pressuring Ferrante to have another child — the couple, married in 2001, had a 6-year-old daughter when Klein died — and that Ferrante had texted Klein to suggest the energy drink might help them conceive. Other testimony showed someone used Ferrante's computers to search for information on cyanide poisoning in the weeks before Klein died and, after she died but before he was arrested, on how a coroner might detect the poison.
The defense called Wecht to counter blood test evidence and a prosecution expert's testimony that Klein was poisoned.
A test done by Quest Diagnostics on blood drawn from Klein hours after she collapsed in her home showed a lethal level of cyanide. But that result wasn't known to investigators until after Klein was dead and her body cremated.
A county crime lab test also confirmed cyanide in Klein's blood, but not a specific level.
The medical examiner's office then sent another blood sample to NMS Labs, which couldn't test the blood because of an equipment malfunction and because a calibrating experiment indicated another testing method wasn't reliable. NMS eventually found a cyanide metabolite — a substance created when the poison is broken down in the bloodstream — but only at a level that could normally occur in a person's blood.
Wecht said the disparity between the Quest and NMS results left him unable to definitively determine the cause and manner of Klein's death.
"One would lead me to determine it's a homicide," Wecht said, "while the other leads me to believe it was a natural death."
Wecht, who served two separate 10-year terms as county coroner, is well known in the Pittsburgh area and is a celebrity of sorts nationally, having consulted on the deaths of JonBenet Ramsey and Elvis Presley, among others. He first gained widespread fame as a critic of the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
The prosecution's main expert, a University of Virginia professor who wrote a book on criminal poisoning, Dr. Christopher Holstege, previously discounted the possibility that Klein died from a heart arrhythmia or some other sudden, unexplained cause because he said the evidence for other causes was lacking.
Wecht said he couldn't rule out natural causes because of what he considers conflicting blood test results.
"That's the basis for my opinion," Wecht said. "I'm stuck. I'm intellectually stuck."
The defense expected to call some brief witnesses before resting Wednesday. Closing arguments were expected Thursday, after which the jury will be sequestered until a verdict.
The prosecution is seeking a first-degree murder conviction, which carries a mandatory life prison sentence.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Malala invites Nawaz, Modi to attend Nobel ceremony

from dailytiimes.com.uk




BIRMINGHAM: Education rights campaigner Malala Yousafzai dedicated her Nobel peace prize on Friday to “voiceless” children around the world, and called on the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers to attend the award ceremony for the sake of peace.
The 17-year-old, who heard the news while she was in a chemistry lesson at school in Birmingham, central England, said she was honoured to be the youngest person and the first Pakistani to receive the accolade.
“The award is for all the children who are voiceless, whose voices need to be heard,” Malala told a press conference, held at the end of the school day so she wouldn’t miss class.
Malala arrived in Britain from Pakistan for medical treatment after being shot in the head by a Taliban fighter in October 2012, an attempt to silence her vocal advocacy of the right of girls to go to school.
Standing on a box so she could reach the podium at Birmingham’s main library, the teenager joked that winning the Nobel would not help her upcoming school exams.
But she told an audience that included her parents and two younger brothers:
“I felt more powerful and more courageous because this award is not just a piece of metal or a medal you wear or an award you keep in your room. This is encouragement for me to go forward.” 
The Norwegian Nobel Committee gave the award to Malala and Indian activist Kailash Satyarthi for their struggle against the repression of children and young people and “for the right of all children to education”.
Malala said she had already spoken to Satyarthi – she joked that she could not pronounce his name – to discuss how they could work together, and also try to reduce tensions between their two countries. 
To that end, she urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend the Nobel award ceremony in December.
‘Courage, determination and vision’
Former British prime minister Gordon Brown, the United Nations special envoy for global education, voiced delight at the Nobel victory for Malala and Satyarthi. 
“They are two of my best friends and two of the greatest global campaigners who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for their courage, determination and for their vision that no child should ever be left behind,” Brown said in a statement. 
After visiting her in hospital, Brown took up Malala’s cause with a petition for universal primary education handed to the Pakistani government on a day he named Malala Day, and later arranging for her to speak at the United Nations. 
Britain’s International Development Secretary Justine Greening also congratulated the joint winners saying the prize was “richly deserved”.
The reaction in the streets of Birmingham, which has a large minority population of Pakistani origin, was also overwhelmingly positive.
“I like her. She’s confident, speaking up for herself, for women,” said 30-year-old Zara Hussain as she waited at a bus stop in Birmingham holding a baby.
“She could be president (of Pakistan) if she carries on.”
Imam Usman Mahmood of Birmingham central mosque, which with 6,000 followers is one of the biggest in the city and was visited by Malala and her family, also expressed his delight. 
“It means that any person who puts their mind to something, they can achieve their goals. We wish her the best when she carries on with her life and that she keeps on going the way she is,” he said. 
But local estate agent Basharat Hussain, 30, said: “I personally think she shouldn’t have got it.”
“She’s inspiring but I think they’re using her for political motives, she’s been used by different organisations and governments.”
The global spotlight has provoked a backlash in parts of Pakistani society, with some accusing Malala of acting as a puppet of the West, while the Taliban have renewed the threat to her life. 
There have also been concerns about exposing a child to such a level of public exposure. 
“I used to say that I think I do not deserve the Nobel peace prize. I still believe that,” Malala said.
“But I believe it is not only an award for what I’ve done but an encouragement for giving me hope, for giving me the courage to go and continue this.” 

Thursday, October 9, 2014

State's gay marriage ban's days appear numbered

from  clarionledger.com

Geoff Pender, The Clarion-Ledger10:39 a.m. CDT October 9, 2014


missgay (2).jpg



Gov. Phil Bryant statement:
"In 2004, over 86 percent of Mississippi voters supported a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in Mississippi is valid only between a man and a woman. I will continue to uphold the constitution of the state of Mississippi."
ORIGINAL STORY:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Mississippi, could provide the catalyst for the Supreme Court to decide the gay marriage issue once and for all, nationwide.
And it's likely, many legal experts believe, bans on gay marriage such as Mississippi's will fall.
"I am opposed to same-sex marriage, but I believe the time has come for people of faith in Mississippi to prepare for the overturning of our constitutional ban on it," said state Rep. Andy Gipson, House judiciary chairman.
Here's why:
• The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear appeals from five states where federal appeals courts declared same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. This will essentially expand same-sex marriage to 11 states covered by these districts, bringing the total to 30.
• The cases the high court let slide were all federal rulings against gay marriage bans. A ruling from another district appeals court upholding a state's ban would essentially force the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and deal with conflicting rulings. The conservative Fifth Circuit or Sixth Circuit are the most likely to uphold a same-sex marriage ban.
• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday agreed to expedite hearing cases challenging Texas' and Louisiana's bans on gay marriage. Early this year, a Texas federal judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional, but issued a stay pending the state's appeal. A Louisiana federal judge recently upheld that state's ban.
• With the Supreme Court this week allowing the decisions against the state bans to stand, legal experts say it's unlikely the court would then rule in favor of any state bans.
"It's really hard to imagine the Supreme Court would have allowed thousands of same-sex couples to get married, including in some very conservative areas like Utah, and then turn around and say, 'Just kidding, there's nothing wrong with state bans,'" said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign.
Mississippi attorney Wesley Hisaw said, "If the federal government can't discriminate on same sex marriage, logically, how could the state discriminate?" Hisaw is representing Lauren Czekala-Chatham, who is suing to have Mississippi recognize her California same-sex marriage so it can grant her a divorce.
A DeSoto County Chancery judge in 2013 ruled Mississippi's Constitution and laws prevent granting a divorce. The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear Czekala-Chatham's appeal. Gov. Phil Bryant, represented by a Christian legal group, is intervening in the case, opposing the appeal.
Hisaw said he doesn't know when the state high court might hear the case or rule, but it's possible Czekala-Chatham's case "could be the one that goes up there" to the U.S. Supreme Court if it were decided and appealed before other federal cases.
In Mississippi and other Bible Belt states, the gay marriage issue remains contentious.
"I do think the bans are in jeopardy because of out-of-control, rogue renegade judges at every level of our federal judiciary," said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis at the Tupelo-based American Family Association. "The federal judiciary has become the place where the Constitution and democracy go to die."
Fischer said federal government and courts should have no jurisdiction over state marriage laws.
"There is no mention of the word marriage or homosexuality in the federal Constitution, so it should be left exclusively to the states," Fischer said.
Brian Little of Crystal Springs, who recently married his longtime partner in an out-of-state ceremony, said the courts are needed to establish fairness.
"Had the South voted on ending slavery or segregation, I'm not sure when those would have ended," Little said. "The courts are here to make educated and fair decisions that are blind, noble and above the level of the general population …. I wish the Supreme Court would go on and strike (same-sex marriage bans) down nationwide."
Gipson, who is also a Baptist minister, said he believes his opposition to same-sex marriage is consistent with the views of most Mississippians. He points to the 2004 vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages being conducted or recognized in Mississippi. It passed with 86 percent of the vote.
But Gipson said that legally, the writing appears to be on the wall for such bans with federal courts.
"I've said that preaching at my church," Gipson said. "It's coming. People of religious conviction need to be processing what this means for the culture, and how we will respond to these issues in coming years – how we will maintain our religious convictions in this environment."
Contact Geoff Pender at (601) 961-7266 or gpender@jackson.gannett.com. Follow @GeoffPender on Twitter.
 2475 65 4LINKEDIN 86COMMENT