Public Defense

A few March 2007 decisions

By Chris Goddu

Bravo

Under Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA 46 USC app 1903©), a vessel aboard which the person in charge claims registry in a particular nation, and that nation does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that vessel is of that nation, is a vessel without nationality and is subject to United States jurisdiction. MDLEA does not require government to show a nexus requirement for jurisdiction - i.e., that drugs in vessel in international waters would affect U.S. The MDLEA is in compliance with international law, consistent with the protective principle permitting nation to assert jurisdiction over person whose conduct outside nation threatens nation?s security and supported by international treaties and agreements. Even though it was error to allow jury to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction because jurisdiction under MDLEA is issue for trial judge, error was harmless where evidence of marijuana possession ample, and jury was instructed jurisdiction was not an issue in the case. Motion to suppress correctly denied where Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to search of aliens in international waters. Evidence of intent to distribute sufficient where circumstantial evidence - Ds admitted knowing marijuana on vessel, and claimed they thought they were going on a fishing expedition but no fish or fishing gear were on board - supported inference, and no evidence opposing jury inference that duress claims were incredible. No error in denying a pre-trial determination of duress defense where Ds were not prevented from introducing evidence of duress, court gave duress instruction, and district court has discretion to wait until evidence has been heard at trial to determine if duress instruction will be given. No error in failure to give downward sentencing adjustment for minor role where, though Ds were crewmen rather than captain of vessel, they failed to demonstrate that they were less culpable or that their participation was less than average. No clear error in determination that Ds not eligible for safety valve where court credited agent?s testimony that he did not believe that Ds disclosed all they knew about drug deal, where he found it incredible that Ds would know nothing about how drugs would be transferred from vessel, given that an international drug smuggler would be unlikely to place $7.5 million in drugs in vessel in international waters without some control over vessel crew. No jurisdiction to review failure to depart where no indication court believed it did not have legal authority to depart. No cognizable Booker claim where D sentenced to mandatory minimum.

03/20/07

Coloian

A district court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion to expunge criminal records based on purely equitable grounds.

Full post as published by First Circuit Federal Defender Blog on March 29, 2007 (boomark / email).