The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Ruiz v. United States

Docket: 18-1114

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: Scudder

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1997, for his participation (at age 18) in a deadly kidnapping scheme to collect drug debts, Ruiz was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping resulting in death, assaulting a federal officer, four counts of violating the Hostage Act, including one count resulting in death, and three counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). The indictment listed a different predicate offense for each section 924(c) count: the underlying conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping, and assault on a federal officer charges. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his seven concurrent life sentences plus a consecutive term of 45 years for using a firearm during the underlying crimes of violence. Ruiz made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge his sentence through 28 U.S.C. 2255 and 2241. After the Supreme Court invalided as unconstitutionally vague the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, one of the Act’s alternative definitions for a predicate “violent felony,” Ruiz obtained permission (28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3_) to file a new collateral attack, contending that the residual clause of section 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague and that his predicate offenses otherwise did not count as crimes of violence under section 924(c)’s elements clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ruiz’s petition on harmless error grounds; any error in his section 924(c) convictions would have no effect on Ruiz’s seven life sentences.

Pack v. Middlebury Community Schools

Docket: 20-1912

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: Daniel Anthony Manion

Areas of Law: Contracts, Education Law, Labor & Employment Law

The School terminated Pack's employment as a teacher after less than a year and published a press release about Pack on its website, allegedly criticizing Pack, which remains available on the School’s website. Pack sued the School. The Elkhart Truth ran an article later that month under the headline: “Fired Northridge teacher, an atheist, sues Middlebury Community Schools for religious discrimination.” Pack and the School settled that case. The School agreed to maintain a level of confidentiality and agreed to tell Pack’s prospective employers only limited information about him. The parties agreed that neither would disparage the other party. The settlement agreement did not mention the 2014 press release. Pack sued Elkhart Truth in state court, alleging defamation. School Superintendent Allen gave an affidavit supporting Truth’s motion to dismiss. Pack later recruited two acquaintances to call the School and pose as prospective employers. During one call, Allen said that Pack’s termination was “a matter of public record.” During another, Allen said Pack was terminated “for cause.” Pack sued for breach of the settlement agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the School on all claims. The School had no contractual obligation to remove the pre-existing press release from its website, enjoys absolute privilege for the affidavit submitted in the Truth litigation, and did not disclose contractually forbidden information to “prospective employers” because the callers were not “prospective employers.”

United States v. Slone

Docket: 20-2721

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: Daniel Anthony Manion

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Informants reported that Slone was selling methamphetamine out of his basement apartment in Dillon's house. In that basement, agents found two guns, 80 grams of meth, and paperwork in Slone’s name. Dillon stated that Slone had recently moved out, leaving his possessions and that Slone sold meth. Agents later found Slone staying with a friend. A search revealed a small amount of meth and a scale in the apartment, and a revolver in the friend’s van, which she said Slone had borrowed. Slone admitted that he had dealt meth, stayed in Dillon’s basement, and had purchased the guns. Slone was charged with possession with intent to distribute the 80 grams of methamphetamine, and illegally possessing firearms as a felon (non-payment of child support), 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). A jury acquitted Slone on the drug charge but convicted him on the firearm charge. The court sentenced him to 41 months’ imprisonment, based on a guidelines range of 41–51 months, adding two offense levels for obstruction of justice, based on perjury, and a four-level enhancement, concluding that Slone possessed the firearms “in connection with” the felony offense of meth trafficking. The court found that the guns potentially facilitated distribution regardless of whether the 80 grams seized were Slone’s and stated that, even if the enhancement did not apply, it would impose the same 41-month sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The government did not need to show that Slone ever carried or brandished the gun during a sale; a gun that is available to protect a drug stash has the potential of facilitating drug trafficking.