A trip to the United Kingdom to take depositions might be a welcome diversion for many lawyers, but not during the weeks leading up to a major, document-intensive, white collar criminal trial.  In United States v. Vilar, 05 CR 0621 (RJS), 2008 WL 2944654 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2008), previously blogged about here and here, the trial had been scheduled to begin on September 8, 2008.  On July 21, 2008, almost three years to the day after the indictment had been returned, the government moved to take the depositions of four witnesses in the U.K., claiming it had only just learned the witnesses were unwilling to testify at a U.S. trial.  The defendants opposed, pointing out that the government had inexplicably dragged its feet on this matter for too long, and conducting foreign depositions at this stage would unfairly prejudice their ability to prepare for trial.  Granting the motion as to two of the proposed witnesses as well as a two-week adjournment (in part to ensure the depositions could be completed without disrupting trial preparation), the court’s decision is an interesting spotlight on this rarely-used mechanism in criminal cases.

Requirements for Rule 15 Depositions

The court held that, as to two witnesses, all the requirements for depositions under Fed.R.Crim.P. 15 were met here: (1) they were unavailable (they were outside the subpoena power of the court, and refusing to testify, despite the government’s promise of an all expenses paid trip), (2) their testimony was material (it was “highly relevant” to one of the defendant’s alleged knowledge of and participation in the fraudulent schemes at issue, and to both defendants’ alleged misrepresentations), and (3) their testimony was necessary “to prevent a failure of justice” (a requirement usually satisfied when the first two are met, and here, the government’s delay did not represent such “as serious lack of due diligence” as to justify denying the motion). 

Showing Necessary to Succeed on Rule 15 Motion

Notably, in reaching its decision, the court rejected the defendants’ demand that in order to evaluate the availability prong, the government be directed to provide affidavits from the witnesses themselves confirming that they would not travel to the U.S, and in particular, that the government confirm that it had advised one of the witnesses that he himself may be a target in the case, which may impact his willingness to participate in any deposition.  In addition, the court rejected a similar demand that in order to satisfy the materiality prong, the government must produce affidavits from the witnesses as to their proposed testimony, or at a minimum, produce all of the notes and memoranda of the witness interviews.

Timing of Rule 15 Motion

Also noteworthy is the court’s rejection of the defendants’ argument that in considering whether the government had engaged in “unexcused delay,” the court should take into account the government’s failure to seek these depositions during the three-year period following the indictment.  “[T]hese prior periods of delay are simply unrelated to the issue of whether conducting the proposed depositions at this time would unfairly prejudice defendants . . . More importantly, defendants have failed to cite any order that the government violated by failing to bring a Rule 15 motion at an earlier date or any authority indicating that the government’s failure to file a Rule 15 motion prior to the two previously scheduled trial dates constituted a waiver of its ability to file such a motion at this time.”

Comment

This case is an interesting counterpoint to United States v. Mason, discussed here, where the court precluded evidence due to a late Rule 16 disclosure rather than adjourn a firm trial date in a multi-defendant case.  Of course, Rule 16 disclosures, unlike Rule 15 notices, have timing constraints: they are to be made upon request, and newly obtained Rule 16 materials are to be “promptly” disclosed before trial.  Moreover, in Vilar, unlike Mason, the only prejudice the defense could identify was disruption of trial preparation.  There was no suggestion that the depositions themselves might open a hornet’s nest requiring additional investigation or a severance.  Finally, the defendants’ laches claim might have had more traction if Mr. Vilar wasn’t simultaneously seeking his own adjournment of the trial until November. 

Striking another blow against the strategic use of peremptory challenges, the Second Circuit upheld the "blind strike" method of jury selection in United States v. Bermudez, 06-5119-cr, 2008 WL 2415713 (2d Cir. June 17, 2008).  This is where both parties simultaneously exercise their peremptory challenges rather than alternately, leading to the possibility that the defense and the prosecutor strike the same person. 

Citing a Nineteenth Century Supreme Court case and five sister circuits, the Court held the defendant has no right to know the government's strikes before announcing his own.  He only has the right to strike up to ten jurors he finds objectionable.  "No injury [is] done if the government unite[s] with him in excluding particular persons from the jury" (quoting Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396 (1894)). 

Of course, for the defense, duplicating a strike with the government means wasting a strike - a strike that could have been used more effectively to increase the defendant's prospects of getting a jury of his peers, or even a couple of jurors of his peers.  Afterall, given the racial disparities between the jury panels and the population of defendants, the defense doesn't just exercise its strikes to exclude people from the jury, it also uses strikes strategically in order to include particular people. Once again, as it did in Rodriguez, the Second Circuit has declined to give the defense any strategic advantage in jury selection, beyond the advantage granted by law (ten strikes as opposed to the government's six). 

In addition to the jury selection issue, most of this opinion deals with an evidentiary issue - whether the government could introduce bolstering evidence in anticipation of, but prior to, an actual attack on their witness's credibility.  The majority affirmed, but there is a compelling (and disheartening) dissent from District Judge Underhill, sitting by designation.

In United States v. Johnson, 2008 WL 2446143 (2d Cir. June 19, 2008), the Second Circuit presents a primer on the questions an AUSA cannot ask their case agent at trial, the questions defense lawyers should object to, and government justifications that don’t hold water.  Grudgingly affirming co-defendant Walker’s conviction (which resulted in a life sentence), despite “large amounts of impermissible matter,” the decision is an invaluable resource to counter the government efforts to sneak improper testimony in under the guise of “background.”

The Second Circuit Blog has some choice words for this decision, so I will focus here on the things agents cannot say, and the fallback arguments prosecutors cannot make.  Forgive the fact that some of these may seem patently obvious.  They weren’t to Walker’s lawyer, who failed to object to a single instance, thus leaving Walker with the plain error standard of review.  Had he objected, the Court indicated that would have tipped the balance in favor of reversal. 

Agent Don’ts

• Agent cannot repeat hearsay describing defendant’s criminal acts (“we had identified basically three principal higher-level players, Mr. Walker, etc.;” “[cooperating witness told us] that he had obtained the crack cocaine from . . . Ernest Walker, who we were already investigating, having identified him as the supplier of multi-ounce crack quantities;” “[cooperating witness confirmed] that he now got [his crack] from Mr. Walker;” “there was a male . . . involved with . . . Mr. Walker in the distribution of crack cocaine and other criminal endeavors”)

• Agent cannot vouch for credibility of government witness (“when I’m asked as to how I believe [the witnesses] . . . it’s information from other people, actual physical evidence, and verification through interviewing the people who are involved”)

• Agent cannot say or even imply that information obtained from investigation “corroborated” other evidence (another cooperating witness “provided[d] information to law enforcement as well,” thus implying that this witness “had confirmed Walker’s involvement in drug dealing”)

• Agent cannot assert own belief about defendant’s guilt (see above)

• Agent cannot announce his own assessment of the defendant’s character (“very shrewd, smart, street-smart, calculating . . .”)

• Agent cannot assure the jury of the reliability of the government’s entire case (I am a Special Agent, who “investigates violations of the federal controlled substance laws,” identifies individuals involved in the drug trade, uses “investigative techniques to obtain evidence” and “then bring that evidence to a court such as this, to hold these people accountable for their illegal actions”)

Government Don’ts

• Cannot backdoor improper, incriminating hearsay evidence as “background of the investigation.”  Balancing test of Rule 403 dictates that “unimportant issue of investigative background” does not outweigh “substantial prejudice to the defendant on the crucial issue of proof of guilt,” particularly where it may be possible to redact the prejudicial portions.

• In a related vein, nor can it backdoor hearsay evidence to prove “state of mind of the investigating agents, to help explain their actions.”  The Court held in Johnson: “[t]he agent’s state of mind as the investigation progressed is ordinarily of little or no relevance to the question of the defendant guilt.” 

Defense Lawyer Dos

· Object!

To be competent to stand trial, a defendant need only have a rational understanding of the proceeding against him and the ability to consult rationally with his lawyer - I say only, because as any defense lawyer who has represented a mentally ill client knows, this standard can in practice be a fairly low threshold.  

As the American Psychiatric Association points out in its amicus brief in the Supreme Court's decision of Indiana v. Edwards, 2008 WL 2445082 (March 26, 2008), "[d]isorganized thinking, deficits in sustaining attention and concentration, impaired expressive abilities, anxiety, and other common symptoms of severe mental illnesses can impair the defendant's ability to play the significantly expanded role required for self-representation even if he can play the lesser role of represented defendant.”

Now, in Edwards, the Court has finally arrived at the APA's obvious conclusion, holding that states are now permitted to "insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial . . . but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves."

In fascinating decision, that pits paternalism against individual choice, Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, rests the decision on practical and symbolic grounds.  Not only does the nitty gritty of trial lawyering require a higher level of competence than simply being the trial defendant, he adds that concerns for the "dignity" of both the defendant and the proceedings as a whole dictate against permitting a mentally ill to represent themselves.  "[G]iven that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling. Moreover, insofar as a defendant's lack of capacity threatens an improper conviction or sentence, self-representation in that exceptional context undercuts the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial."

It is the latter reason that inspires some of the more colorful comments in Justice Scalia's spirited dissent.  Joined by Justice Thomas, he points out that the "dignity" affirmed by the right of self-representation is not to prevent "the defendant's making a fool of himself by presenting an amateurish or even incoherent defense" but rather "the supreme human dignity of being master of one's fate rather than a ward of the State - the dignity of individual choice." (Justice Scalia, you may recall, filed a dissenting opinion in the Court's landmark decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which held that executing the mentally retarded was cruel and inhuman punishment).

While the majority's decision is to be welcomed for ameliorating some of the tragedy of putting severely mentally ill people on trial in the first place, the dissent raises one important concern, which is that the majority's decision, because it does not include any clear standards as to when a mentally ill person is too ill to represent themselves, risks eviscerating the right of self-representation for the mentally ill altogether (and given the malleability of mental illness diagnoses, could result in significant inroads into the right of self-representation generally). As Justice Scalia warns, "[o]nce the right of self-representation for the mentally ill is a sometime thing, trial judges will have every incentive to make their lives easier . . . by appointing knowledgeable and literate counsel."

As an agent points out in United States v. Graziano, 07-cr-508 (JFB), 2008 WL 789886 (E.D.N.Y. March 20, 2008), computers can be repositories of one’s most private, even subconscious, thoughts.  Asked why he examined Internet history files when searching a defendant’s computer for gambling records, he explained they “help[ ] to give you what the user was thinking about . . . at this particular time.”  As a result, the agent uncovered and tagged an AOL search entitled “Arson RICO laws,” ostensibly for use in the gambling investigation, because RICO is “a federal statute that is used to prosecute illegal gambling offenses.”  In the end, however, it became key evidence in a parallel investigation that led to an indictment charging the defendant with arson of a competitor’s business.

The Computer Search

The defendant moved to suppress the search of the AOL search records as beyond the scope of the search warrant, which authorized a search for gambling records.  In denying the motion, the district judge reached two notable conclusions:

(a)     Overbreadth

First, the Court rejected the defendant’s challenge that the search warrant was overbroad because it failed to include a “search protocol,” delineating the particular computer files to be searched and the search terms that could be utilized.  Noting that “courts are ill-suited to micromanage in advance how the computer will be searched,” the court emphasized, however, that in seeking the warrant, “law enforcement must establish the basis for searching the computer and particularize the evidence being sought during such search.”

But computers can contain warehouse loads of documents, including the equivalent of boxes of photographs, personal e-mails and Internet search histories.  It is hard to see how any of this information could yield the specific documents sought in this search warrant: “records of bets, accounts and transactions, including betting slips, made in the course of illegal bookmaking activity.”  Thus, where is the prejudice from precluding law enforcement in advance from searching those files (and denying the agents an opportunity to turn the computer search into a general fishing expedition)? 
 
(b)        Reasonableness

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the manner of the search here was unreasonable, because the search involved a cursory review of every file, including Internet search files, and was not confined solely to obvious gambling files and documents.  Citing Supreme Court precedent that a brief review of apparently innocuous documents is permissible in searches for papers, the district court held that “it was entirely reasonable for the [forensic examiner] to engage in a cursory review of files and documents, by opening them, to determine whether they contained evidence of illegal gambling that was within the scope of the warrant.”

The court found that the bookmarking of the “arson RICO laws” search, once it had been uncovered, was reasonable given the agent’s credible testimony that he saved the evidence because gambling is prosecuted under the federal RICO statute (though, perhaps more plausibly, the evidence comes under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement).

The more critical issue is whether it was reasonable for the agent to search records containing Internet search histories at all (such files are listed with the designation “htm” or “html,” and are thus readily identifiable to the examiner in advance as Internet search history files).  The district court credited the agent’s “reasonable belief that evidence related to an illegal gambling operation might be contained in AOL search records.”  That may be true (searches for sports scores, etc.), but, as noted above, the search warrant here did not authorize a search for all documents related to an illegal gambling operation.  Rather, it specified particular gambling-related records that may be searched for and seized, documents that would not be contained in files with Internet search histories. 

The court does not address how Internet search records could reasonably be related to or produce the specific gambling records at issue.  (The case also does not address another interesting issue – raised by Judge Weinstein in United States v. Polizzi, 2008 WL 1886006 (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2008) – that is, whether the searched files could have been independently obtained from AOL itself, as some courts have held that an Internet user can have no expectation of privacy in their Internet search histories).

Defendant’s Offer to Take a Polygraph

In the same decision, the court ruled on an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit - whether the defendant’s offer during an interview with the prosecutor to take a polygraph should be admitted at trial as consciousness of innocence.  Granting the government’s motion in limine to preclude the evidence, the found the offer had no probative value because it was not made in the context of an agreement that the results of the polygraph, whatever they were, would be admissible.  “Given the lack of adverse consequences from such an offer, there is no way to distinguish between the offer being made by an innocent defendant and the offer being made by a guilty defendant for purely strategic reasons.”

Advising Jury of Potential Penalties

Finally, in an interesting counterpoint to Judge Weinstein’s decision in Polizzi, the court ruled that the defendant could not cross-examine the cooperating witnesses as to the mandatory minimum sentences they had faced prior to their plea agreements, because “such reference would advise the jury as to the punishment the defendant is facing.”

There is a curious irony to Judge Weinstein's decision in United States v. Polizzi, 06 CR 22 (JBW), 2008 WL 1886006 (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2008).  Although for many it is a quintessential example of liberal judicial activism, the decision is rooted squarely in conservatives' favorite theory, originalism, i.e. interpreting the constitution minus over two hundred years of history.  And, incidentally, it is hardly a philosophy that Judge Weinstein has been known to embrace.

Of course, the bigger irony in the decision is that we must reach back in history to more barbaric times to find compassionate practices that mitigate the barbarism of today's mandatory minimum sentences.  Holding, contrary to decades of precedent, that he had erred in failing to advise a jury of certain mandatory minimum sentences applicable in a child pornography possession case, Judge Weinstein points out that a jury in 1791 would most certainly have known the consequences of their decision (such jury, it should be noted, made up of white, male property owners), and would thus have been empowered to show mercy by manipulating its verdict.  Polizzi puts pay to the idea that any judicial philosophy is less malleable than another or more likely to restrain judicial law-making. 

Facts
 
At the heart of this decision is the tragic story of Peter Polizzi, an Italian immigrant who on the surface had achieved the American dream – successful businessman, father of five, self-taught guitarist.  Psychologically scarred, however, by childhood sexual abuse, he secretly repaired to a double-locked room above his garage over a five-year period, where he viewed and downloaded images of child pornography.   There was no evidence that he had ever forwarded the images to another, or engaged in any improper conduct with a child. 

A subscriber to a website targeted in an FBI investigation, Polizzi was arrested and prosecuted for possession and receipt of child pornography.  At trial, jury rejected his insanity defense and found him guilty on all counts.  He faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years on the receiving counts. 

When informed after their verdict of the mandatory minimum sentence, three jurors indicated that they would have voted not guilty by reason of insanity had they known of the applicable mandatory minimum, and two other jurors indicated that they believed Polizzi should be treated not incarcerated. 

Failure to Advise Jury of Mandatory Minimums

Building on these jurors’ amended thoughts, Judge Weinstein crafts a compelling opinion that the defendant had a right to have his jury informed in advance of the mandatory sentence riding on their decision.  Reviewing legal and historical scholarship regarding criminal practices in the Thirteen Colonies, the court concludes that trial juries during that period would not only have known of the harsh sentences to be imposed on a finding of guilt, but also "would have been expected to deliver a verdict of not guilty or of guilty of a lesser crime had it believed the punishment excessive for the crime actually charged and proved."

Why should such practices apply today?  “With the advent of mandatory minimum sentences . . . federal juries today again face-albeit often unknowingly –‘either-or’ choices similar to those facing the British and colonial juries of 1791 [i.e. death/transportation/whipping or conviction of a lesser crime]. To fully exercise their historical function, juries today must understand the two eithers; they cannot rely on the court to mitigate because it is bound by the statutory minimum term of imprisonment.”  If juries are not just fact-finders, if they are truly the bulwark that curbs judicial, executive and legislative power - "the conscience of the community and guardian against government oppression ... [and] a 'safety valve' for exceptional cases" - then, Judge Weinstein reasons, juries must be entrusted with complete information regarding the consequences of their actions, including information about their power to dispense mercy through nullification.

Putting aside concerns that hearkening back to the days of the Eighteenth Century would not always be a giant step forward, or that knowledge of mandatory minimums may harden rather than melt jurors' hearts, the Polizzi holding is a persuasive and creative approach to mitigating the severity of mandatory minimum sentences. 

Few expect this decision to survive Second Circuit scrutiny. But Judge Weinstein has his eye on higher courts - the court of public opinion for one, and, of course, the Supreme Court, which given its current ideological make-up, may be more than a little receptive to his call for a return to 1791 and a limited reintroduction of the jury’s power to nullify.   The Supremes may also revisit the issue addressed at the beginning of the Polizzi decision: that the statute at issue is void for vagueness and overbreadth, because it has the potential to criminalize innocent behavior. 

Lack of Scienter

In a nutshell, the Polizzi court finds the statute problematic because it penalizes “knowing” possession and receipt of child pornography, but does not require on its face that the individual "intend" to possess such material. While equating knowledge with criminal intent may work with traditional crimes like possession of stolen goods or drugs, the court points out, this construct fails to account for the myriad ways in which one can inadvertently receive and possess materials via the Internet - "where email may be automatically received, files can instantaneously download themselves, web pages shown for only a fraction of a second are automatically stored, and knowledge can first be acquired after the fact of receipt.”  As one FBI agent put it, the court quotes, "[o]ne click, you're guilty."  In fact, the court claims (perhaps a bit hysterically), that one of its interns refused to conduct certain Internet research on the case for fear of committing a crime. 

It is this significant potential for the statute to penalize accidental and benign conduct that renders it void for vagueness and overbreadth - problems, the court concludes, that cannot be rescued by the stingy safe harbor provision in the statute, or suspect judicial efforts to imply an intent element.  Constrained by precedent to reject the challenge, Judge Weinstein clearly believes this is an area ripe for revisitation by the appellate courts.

Other Challenges

The Polizzi opinion also addresses a number of interesting challenges that, for one reason or another, were inappropriate in this particular case or are foreclosed by current precedent.  They may however prove more fruitful under a different set of facts or in the future as society's perception of these issues evolve:

• Eighth Amendment: Five years for "psychologically stunted man who . . . suffered vicious sexual abuse as a child" and who needs "treatment not a destructive long prison sentence," is undoubtedly cruel, the court concludes, but unfortunately, is not unusual, where "cruelty in punishment is adopted by Congress as policy."  Moreover, although some may find the punishment in Polizzi's case to be "shockingly disparate" - particularly in light of the passive nature of his crime, his psychological disabilities, his low risk of recidivism, and the public "scourging" or registration as a sex offender that awaits him after prison - it is not unconstitutionally "grossly disproportionate" to the crime committed under applicable case-law.  In this context, the court does an interesting analysis of the median sentences meted out by states for similar conduct (producing some very useful material for those seeking to challenge draconian sentencing guideline ranges in child pornography case), and also importantly queries the tendency to lump all sex offenders together when addressing their future dangerousness.  Such conclusions "fail to take into account differences between pederasts and voyeurs."

• Irrationality: Similarly, the five-year mandatory minimum for receipt of child pornography, while a severe penalty for Polizzi's crime, is not irrational, as that term is defined, despite the fact that the possession count does not carry any mandatory minimum.  Congress is not held to "a precise calculus of harm and risk."  Importantly, in this section, the court notes that the evidence regarding whether child pornography actually encourages viewers to commit physical sexual offenses (often presented as a given) is in fact inconclusive.

• Multiplicity:  Conflation of possession and receipt raises a problem of multiplicity (indictment improperly charges a single offense multiple times in separate counts, when only one crime has been committed).  The court did not need to address this issue since it was setting aside the verdict on the receiving counts. 

• Rule of Lenity: This doctrine of statutory construction requires a court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of a defendant.  Unfortunately, the mandatory minimum Polizzi was subject to is totally unambiguous, and does not (but surely should) "contain an implicit reasonableness limitation." 

• First Amendment: The court notes the tension created between First Amendment rights (such as the right to view adult pornography in privacy) and the expansive regulatory and enforcement efforts to curb exploitation of children, and cites several decisions that have struck down child pornography legislation as unconstitutionally overbroad.  One of these decisions, however, was recently overruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Williams, 2008 WL 2078503 (May 19, 2008) ("pandering" provision of PROTECT Act neither overbroad nor vague).

• Fourth Amendment: The court highlights the tension between legal constructs of what is a "reasonable" expectation of privacy in the online context, and the actual expectations of online users.  In particular, he questions the validity of denying Fourth Amendment protections to non-substantive communications (such as email subject headings and Internet search queries) when the line between content and non-content may be impossible to draw, and thus lead to unduly invasive searches by law enforcement.

• Separation of Powers: The court notes the concern that statutory mandatory minimums have shifted too much power from the judiciary to the executive, but concludes that "on the basis of current precedent," applying the functional approach of analyzing statutes under the separation of powers doctrine, the mandatory minimum prescribed for receipt of child pornography passes muster.  The kicker here is "current precedent," which the court obviously believes needs revisiting. 

This huge decision (not just literally in length, but also in heart and compassion) is a must-read for anyone defending someone charged with possession of child pornography. 

The Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) - holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity to cross-examine - has spawned extensive litigation on the meaning of "testimonial."  In United States v. Qualls, 2008 WL 2091138 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2008), a court addressed an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit: whether a certification of foreign business records under §3505 - and by extension, certification of any business record that dispenses with live witnesses - constitutes "testimonial" hearsay. 

Relying on decisions from other circuits addressing written authentication of domestic business records, the court found it does not.  Noting that the Supreme Court itself held in Crawford that "business records 'by their nature [are] not testimonial,'" the Qualls court said it "cannot envision that the Supreme Court expressed continued support for the admission of a category of records yet prohibited the admission of records necessary to authenticate them."  To require the government to authenticate foreign business records with live testimony, particularly in complex fraud cases, "would dramatically decrease judicial efficiency at minimal or no gain to the truth-seeking process."