Thursday, March 7, 2013

AG Holder's Defense of Swartz Prosecution is Troubling

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday defended the Department of Justice's treatment of Aaron Swartz, the 26 year-old internet activist who committed suicide three months before his scheduled trial in federal court in Boston.  Specifically, Holder, in response to questioning by Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, defended the prosecution by citing the plea offer, stating, "There was never an intention for him to go to jail for longer than a 3-, 4- potentially 5-month range . . . .  Those, those offers were rejected."

Holder's response troubles me in at least two regards.  First is his implicit belief that a five-month jail sentence for Swartz was lenient.  Swartz' alleged crimes were clearly based on a heartfelt belief that the public was entitled to free access to knowledge, specifically to academic journals.  He would receive no personal benefit for his actions.  Perhaps in these days, where sentences of years in double digits are commonplace, a sentence of five months seems to Holder like a trip to Disneyland, but five months in jail for a fragile young man acting out of humanistic belief and causing only comparatively light physical damage does not seem lenient to me.  Apparently, Swartz did not see it as light.

Second is Holder's further implicit assumption that government decency is satisfied by a reasonable plea offer and available only to those who plead guilty.  Swartz was indicted originally for crimes theoretically punishable by up to 35 years in prison.  Later, a superseding indictment which ratcheted the potential sentence up to 50 years was filed.  Had Swartz exercised his constitutional right to go to trial and been convicted, I would have been shocked if the government would have sought a sentence of five months or less.  Rather, it undoubtedly would have sought a long sentence, most likely in the sentencing guideline range of approximately seven years.

I do not condemn the government for prosecuting Swartz.  Perhaps prosecuting him was cruel, but prosecutions are often cruel to defendants.  Despite his noble intentions, Swartz arguably violated the law, and I do not believe a victim should control the decision to prosecute, one way or the other.  I do not, however, believe that Swartz' purported crimes deserved the full-blown zealous prosecution they received.  A prosecutor in the appropriate case should charge less than the most serious crimes available and not always exercise her power to the "full extent of the law."  Prosecutorial decency, or prosecution discretion, should not be confined only to plea offers.

(goldman)

March 7, 2013 in Computer Crime, Current Affairs, Prosecutions, Prosecutors | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Eleventh Circuit Finds Violation of Customs Regulation Not Criminal

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

One of the several troubling aspects of the continuing overcriminalization of federal law is the frequent elevation of a violation of civil regulation to a crime.  In United States v. Izurieta, 11th Cir., 11-13585 (February 22, 2013), the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue.

The defendants in Izurieta were convicted after trial by jury of violating the general smuggling statute, 18 U.S.C. 545, importing goods "contrary to law," by violating a customs regulation, 19 C.F.R. 142.113(c), in failing to redeliver to Customs for exportation or destruction goods purportedly contaminated with E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and/or Salmonella which had been conditionally released.

The defendants appealed on various grounds -- significantly not including whether the indictment sufficiently charged a crime by relying on the Customs regulation.  At oral argument, however, the Court raised this issue sua sponte and ordered supplemental briefing.

Section 545, as pertinent here, reads:

Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise contrary to law, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . .

Emphasis added.

The regulation or "law" upon the charges here were based covered the "failure to deliver, export, and destroy with FDA supervision" certain foods found to be adulterated.  19 C.F.R. 141.113(c).

The Court in its opinion recognized a split among circuits on when a regulation constitutes the "law" upon which a Section 545 indictment may be based.  The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Alghazouli, 517 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2008) took what the opinion called "a relatively narrow interpretation" of Section 545 that regulations are included in "law" only when "there is a statute (a 'law') that specifies that violation of that regulation is a crime."  The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Mitchell, 39 F.3d 465, 470 (4th Cir. 1994), to the contrary, took what the opinion called a "more expansive" view, deciding that Section 545 criminalizes violations of any regulation "having the force and effect of law" based on a three-prong test.

The Court, while claiming its binding authority, Bobb v. United States, 252 F.2d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1958) was consistent with the Fourth Circuit's "expansive" approach in Mitchell, applied the rule of lenity and held that the regulation in question did not qualify as a "law" for purposes of Section 545 liability.  It found that the regulation in question was primarily to reflect contractual requirements between Customs and the importer and thus was "civil only."

The rule of lenity was premised, it said, on two ideas:  first, that "a fair warning should be given . . . of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed" and, second, that "legislators and not courts should define criminal activity."

This apparent case-by-case approach, of course, does not establish a "bright line" as to when violations of an administrative regulation become a crime.  Citizens and attorneys will often have to guess whether a violation of a regulation is a crime; that is, "what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed."  The case may, however, curb the government's increasing efforts to convert violations of ostensible civil regulations into crimes.

This case should remind lawyers that the uncertainties in this area require that they pay attention at both the trial and appellate levels to the issue of whether a violation of an administrative regulation is a crime.

 (goldman)

(A hat tip to Paul Kish and the Federal Criminal Lawyer Blog)

 

March 5, 2013 in Food and Drink, Judicial Opinions, Prosecutions, Prosecutors, Statutes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)