Latest 3 Cases: Kirkman v. Thompson (Civil Rights), United States v. Gibson (Constitutional Law), United States v. Lewis (Criminal Law)

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

Kirkman v. Thompson

Docket: 19-1904

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: William Joseph Bauer

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

Following a 1992 fight that involved Johnson, Herron, and Walker, two shooters shot the three men. Johnson survived. In the hospital, Johnson described a shooter by the street name “Duke,” where Duke lived, and Duke's car. Johnson identified Duke and his accomplice from a photo array. Police pulled over a vehicle matching Johnson’s description and arrested the driver, Kirkman, and the passenger, who matched the general description of the second shooter. Kirkman had a tattoo of Duke on his arm. Police took additional photos and presented a second photo array to Johnson, who identified them as the shooters. At trial, Johnson identified Kirkman and his passenger as the shooters. There was disputed testimony about the cause of the fight. Convicted of murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, Kirkman was sentenced to life in prison. Johnson had a change of heart and submitted an affidavit, identifying Ford and an unknown man as the shooters. At Kirkman’s post-conviction hearing, Johnson testified that he and his family had been threatened. Other testimony was inconsistent with Johnson’s. Illinois courts denied post-conviction relief, finding that Johnson’s recantation lacked credibility. Johnson later pleaded guilty for perjury but failed to specify which statement was false. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. Illinois courts found Johnson’s recantation lacked credibility. An evidentiary hearing satisfied Kirkman’s due process rights. The Illinois trial court’s determination defeated Kirkman’s innocence and perjured testimony claims.

United States v. Gibson

Docket: 19-1402

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: William Joseph Bauer

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Officer Garrison encountered Gibson, a suspected drug trafficker, walking with a companion. Although initially a consensual encounter, Garrison questioned Gibson and his companion and briefly detained Gibson. After Gibson and his companion departed, Garrison spotted a methamphetamine pipe under his patrol vehicle. Local law enforcement conducted a traffic stop of Gibson’s vehicle in the curtilage of his driveway. A drug detection dog signaled the presence of a controlled substance in the vehicle, though nothing was found. Earlier that day, Gibson’s wife had met with DEA agents to tell them about methamphetamine inside the home. Police used information Mrs. Gibson had provided to obtain a search warrant. The search of the home uncovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, currency, and AK-47 rifles, which led to Gibson’s arrest. Gibson moved to suppress all evidence seized during the search, alleging he was detained without reasonable suspicion, unlawfully frisked, arrested without probable cause, stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and the traffic stop exceeded a permissible scope. Upon learning of his wife’s cooperation, Gibson also argued her statement was insufficiently attenuated to justify the search warrant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Mrs. Gibson’s voluntary statement with DEA agents was independently sufficient to sustain findings of probable cause and sufficiently attenuated from subsequent events to preclude suppression.

United States v. Lewis

Dockets: 19-1911, 19‐1262

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Joel Martin Flaum

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2016-2018, Draheim managed a conspiracy, responsible for at least 38 packages of methamphetamine sent from California to La Crosse, Wisconsin. Draheim supervised at least 11 associates who accepted shipments on her behalf, sent money transfers to California, distributed the meth, rented storage lockers, and collected money owed to her. Draheim provided vehicles. After agents placed a wiretap on her phone and seized several packages of meth en route to Draheim, her California supplier forced Draheim to find a new source. Draheim contacted Lewis, recently out of jail but still involved in the “meth scene.” Lewis agreed to purchase meth from a new supplier. During the planned transaction, agents seized the package, which contained 28.6 grams of nearly pure meth. Police subsequently arrested Draheim after they found her daughter dead at home from an overdose; they took Lewis into custody for violating the terms of his state supervision. Both pleaded guilty to meth distribution offenses, 21 U.S.C. 841, 846. Draheim, facing a mandatory‐minimum 10-year sentence, unsuccessfully argued that she qualified for “safety‐valve relief.” The court reasoned that she was the leader of her enterprise. Lewis unsuccessfully contended that he should be sentenced based only on his conviction, not other “relevant conduct.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed Draheim’s sentence but vacated as to Lewis. The fact that the defendant has engaged in other drug transactions is not, alone, sufficient to justify treating those transactions as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.