Appellate Law

CA1: cooperating gullible convicts get what they deserve

By S. COTUS

US v. Mulero-Algarin, No. 07-1701 (7/24/08).  After the defendant plead guilty and was sentenced he arranged to provide the government some information.  A couple of feds traveled to interview the defendant, but for some reason the interview never happened.  Nevertheless, he thought he had an agreement.  The government thought he was gullible.  ?The chief of the office's criminal division rejected his overtures. She took the position that the defendant's assistance had not been "substantial" and, thus, did not warrant the filing of a Rule 35(b) motion to his behoof.?

Selya agrees and the District Court agree.  The guy is gullible.  Gullible people stay in jail.  Only if there is an unconstitutional motive for misleading a defendant can the courts intervene (says Selya).  Therefore, justice is done.

Selya does use a lot of big words, in order to ensure the gullible guy in jail that at least one judge knows how to use a dictionary.  Justice is done.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 25, 2008 (boomark / email).