Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

Bakor v. Barr

Docket: 18-3011

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that defendant committed two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's conviction for the Minnesota crimes of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fifth Degree and knowing failure to comply with Minnesota's sex offender registration statute were crimes involving moral turpitude. The court also held that petitioner failed to exhaust his remaining arguments and therefore declined to consider them.

United States v. Becerra

Docket: 18-2777

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that there was more than enough evidence for defendant's probation officer and other officers to believe defendant had a firearm on him. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. The court also held that defendant was in custody when he made both statements at issue. In this case, the "request for clarification" of defendant's statement that he had "something" in his car did not require Miranda warnings. Furthermore, because the bulge in defendant's pocket could have been a gun or other weapon that would have posed a danger to the officers and others, they could ask about it without the formality of Miranda warnings. The court joined its sister circuits in declining to recognize the innocent-possessor defense. The court held that the district court did not err in excluding defendant's proposed testimony that he had found the handgun in his car earlier in the day and was about to hand it over to his probation officer. The court reasoned that, even if defendant intended to turn over the gun (or the ammunition) to his probation officer, it is still a crime to knowingly possess it in the first place. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court considered defendant's mitigation arguments at sentencing; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.