Help Thy Neighbor and Go Straight to Prison

[mad cow]

Young, now 43, was convicted of several burglaries as a young man but then resolved that he would turn his life around. Released from prison in 1996, he married, worked six days a week, and raised four children in Hixson, Tenn.

Then a neighbor died, and his widow, Neva Mumpower, asked Young to help sell her husband’s belongings. He later found, mixed in among them, seven shotgun shells, and he put them aside so that his children wouldn’t find them.

“He was trying to help me out,” Mumpower told me. “My husband was a pack rat, and I was trying to clear things out.”

Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods. The United States attorney in Chattanooga prosecuted Young under a federal law that bars ex-felons from possessing guns or ammunition. In this case, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, that meant a 15-year minimum sentence.

The United States attorney, William Killian, went after Young — even though none of Young’s past crimes involved a gun, even though Young had no shotgun or other weapon to go with the seven shells, and even though, by all accounts, he had no idea that he was violating the law when he helped Mrs. Mumpower sell her husband’s belongings.

In May, a federal judge, acknowledging that the case was Dickensian but saying that he had no leeway under the law, sentenced Young to serve a minimum of 15 years in federal prison. It didn’t matter that the local authorities eventually dismissed the burglary charges.

So the federal government, at a time when it is cutting education spending, is preparing to spend $415,000 over the next 15 years to imprison a man for innocently possessing seven shotgun shells while trying to help a widow in the neighborhood. And, under the law, there is no early release: Young will spend the full 15 years in prison.

A little over 2 years per shell.More at link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/kristof-help-thy-neighbor-and-go-straight-to-prison.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

[Anti Federalist]

Zero Tolerance.

[kcchiefs6465]

Zero Tolerance.
Law and Order republicans.

[torchbearer]

“The law perverted! The law — and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.”
― Frédéric Bastiat (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat), The Law (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2548001)

//

[jclay2]

This judge should be tried for treason.

[FrankRep]

This judge should be tried for treason.


In this case, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, that meant a 15-year minimum sentence.


The Judge didn't create the law.

[fr33]

The system is not just. Good people are persecuted every day by it.

[FrankRep]

The system is not just. Good people are persecuted every day by it.

Young, now 43, was convicted of several burglaries as a young man

Crime doesn't pay, kinda messes up your life.

However, the law, not the Judge's fault, is pretty damn harsh too.

[pcosmar]

In this case, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, that meant a 15-year minimum sentence.


The Judge didn't create the law.
I'll bet some "pro gun" politicos passed it. likely the NRA supported it and pushed it.

Go look.. It is usually the case.

edit
good guess
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Career_Criminal_Act

The ACCA was originally included with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 sponsored by the Reagan Administration

[mad cow]

From the article:


With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has almost one-quarter of the world’s prisoners.

See signature.

[fr33]

Crime doesn't pay, kinda messes up your life.

However, the law, not the Judge's fault, is pretty damn harsh too.
The only crime committed in this case is an arbitrary one set up by an unaccountable mafia. It is a crime that doesn't coincide with natural law.

And it actually is partially the judges fault for not understanding or practicing the idea of nullification and the concept of discretion.

[TheTexan]

In this case, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, that meant a 15-year minimum sentence.


The Judge didn't create the law.

He was "just doing his job?"

I would quit my job, before I sent an innocent man to prison.

[eduardo89]

This judge should be tried for treason.

Minimum sentences take away any discretion the judge may have in sentencing. That's why Rand is pushing to abolish them.

[eduardo89]

He was "just doing his job?"

I would quit my job, before I sent an innocent man to prison.

The guy wasn't innocent, he was in violation of federal law. This case never should have been brought to court, but he was indeed guilty of violating the law.

[TheTexan]

The guy wasn't innocent, he was in violation of federal law. This case never should have been brought to court, but he was indeed guilty of violating the law.

He was guilty of violating words in a book.

If that's your standard of guilt, then go ahead and throw yourself in jail. You've committed more felonies than you'll ever know.

[pcosmar]

Yeah yeah yeah.
I live my life on that razors edge.

I am quite familiar with the Sword of Damocles .

[James Madison]

How can the government restrict the rights of predicate felons? Equal Protection Under the Law? Shall Not Be Infringed?

[eduardo89]

He was guilty of violating words in a book.

If that's your standard of guilt, then go ahead and throw yourself in jail. You've committed more felonies than you'll ever know.

I never said the charges were fair, they aren't. The law against ex-felons possessing firearms/ammo is absolutely absurd and contrary to logic and the concept of inalienable rights.

[FrankRep]

Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods.

Mr. Young, Stop Stealing!

[pcosmar]

How can the government restrict the rights of predicate felons? Equal Protection Under the Law? Shall Not Be Infringed?

because since 1934 NO ONE has dragged them out and hung them.

They do whatever they damn well please. :(

[pcosmar]

Mr. Young, Stop Stealing!

Those charges were dropped.


It didn’t matter that the local authorities eventually dismissed the burglary charges.

[TheTexan]

I never said the charges were fair, they aren't. The law against ex-felons possessing firearms/ammo is absolutely absurd and contrary to logic and the concept of inalienable rights.


The judge knew the guy had turned his life around, was a productive member of society, had a wife and kids, had no intentions of harming anyone, and was simply being a friend to his neighbor, and had no idea he was doing anything illegal.

The judge sent him to prison anyway. For fifteen years. Unimaginable harm to his family.

During the Nuremberg trials it was determined that "just doing my job" was not an excuse. I don't see how this is any different.

[TheTexan]

The guy wasn't innocent, he was in violation of federal law.

And technically, no he was not. He broke no law. The federal laws you are referring to, are not laws, because they are unconstitutional.

[mad cow]

Mr. Young, Stop Stealing!

From the article:


It didn’t matter that the local authorities eventually dismissed the burglary charges.

The stolen goods might have been the late Mr. Mumpower's.

[FrankRep]

The stolen goods might have been the late Mr. Mumpower's.

Nope!


More to the Story:


July 21st, 2013


But in late September 2011, he went off track. He stole tools, tires and weightlifting equipment from vehicles and a business warehouse. He even had his son with him on one trip, which added a separate charge.

A video camera recorded the burglaries.

Less than a week later police knocked on the door of his Hixson home. He let them in.

They found the tools, but they found something else too, small items inside a drawer that would escalate his punishment far beyond burglary.
...

Young confessed to the burglaries and faced state prison time, probably a few years with the likelihood of parole and probation. Not a proud moment but recoverable.

The 43-year-old man soon discovered that the shotgun shells carried a heavier burden -- a 15-year mandatory federal prison sentence with no possibility of parole.


Full Story:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/a-few-shotgun-shells-landed-a-man-15/

[TheTexan]

Nope!


More to the Story:

Thanks for the correction.

The judge/prosecutor is still an asshole, but I think it's safe to say we can keep the rope on the shelf.

[mad cow]

Aha,good find.He should have gotten a year or two for the burglaries,but the 7 shotgun shells is just plain wrong.

[fr33]

Mmmm. Crow tastes good. :D

[FrankRep]

Thanks for the correction.

The judge/prosecutor is still an asshole, but I think it's safe to say we can keep the rope on the shelf.

Again, not the Judge's fault.

[TheTexan]

Again, not the Judge's fault.

Sort of. But I wouldn't put my career on the line to help a thief, either. So I guess I agree.

But I would still feel like a terrible person about it.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Unlikely to receive a fair trial and under duress, Young confessed to claimed he had committed the burglaries.


Mr. Young, Stop Stealing Getting Convicted!


Crime Getting convicted doesn't pay, kinda messes up your life.
..

[FrankRep]

..

Go ahead and defend the guy who decided that stealing was cool and even took his son along for the fun.



But in late September 2011, he went off track. He stole tools, tires and weightlifting equipment from vehicles and a business warehouse. He even had his son with him on one trip, which added a separate charge.

A video camera recorded the burglaries.
..
Young confessed to the burglaries and faced state prison time, probably a few years with the likelihood of parole and probation. Not a proud moment but recoverable.


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/a-few-shotgun-shells-landed-a-man-15/

[TheTexan]

..

Good point.

[TheTexan]

Go ahead and defend the guy who decided that stealing was cool and even took his son along for the fun.



But in late September 2011, he went off track. He stole tools, tires and weightlifting equipment from vehicles and a business warehouse. He even had his son with him on one trip, which added a separate charge.

A video camera recorded the burglaries.
..
Young confessed to the burglaries and faced state prison time, probably a few years with the likelihood of parole and probation. Not a proud moment but recoverable.


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/a-few-shotgun-shells-landed-a-man-15/

I'm hesitant to call anyone who accepts a plea deal, "guilty." You have no idea what is or is not on the video... unless its on youtube?

It also sounds like he found out about the ammo charges after the plea deal. Which is definitely suspicious.

[better-dead-than-fed]

He allegedly stole tools, tires and weightlifting equipment from vehicles and a business warehouse. He allegedly even had his son with him on one trip, which added a separate charge.


A video camera recorded the burglaries.

What exactly did you see when you watched the video? I can't see it from here.

[Mani]

I remember my cousin was in Law School several years ago and there was a "family night" where they invited family members to come and check out a lecture.

It was really cool, as I have no law background. The professor went through all sorts of various types of scenarios and asked the audience their opinions and such.

I just recall the main theme brought up OVER and OVER and OVER again, "Does the punishment fit the crime?" I just recall after every scenario that was the question, and throughout the lecture that seemed to be the theme of the evening and something he said was super important that attorneys had to be looking into. It seemed like the mantra...to make sure if a crime was committed, then what was the APPROPRIATE punishment.


I find it sad because it seems like that Overriding important theme, has been lost.

[FrankRep]

What exactly did you see when you watched the video? I can't see it from here.

From the article: Young confessed to the burglaries.

[TheTexan]

From the article: Young confessed to the burglaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Consequences_for_innocent_accused

[FrankRep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Consequences_for_innocent_accused

From the Article: A video camera recorded the burglaries.

[TheTexan]

From the Article: A video camera recorded the burglaries.

Notice, it doesn't say, "A video camera recorded their faces and/or a license plate"

[FrankRep]

Notice, it doesn't say, "A video camera recorded their faces and/or a license plate"
From the Article: They found the tools [in his house].

[TheTexan]

From the Article: They found the tools [in his house].

They could have found a screwdriver that looks similar, for all we know. Articles love to be misleading.

I wasn't on the jury*; I will make no claims regarding his guilt.

(*Oh wait, there probably wasn't a jury. Plea deal. etc)

[better-dead-than-fed]

"97%" of U.S. convicts have not been found guilty by any jury:


In mid June, under a deal with federal prosecutors, Kenneth Kassab was on the verge of pleading guilty to illegally transporting thousands of pounds of explosives when he changed his mind. A week later, he was acquitted by a federal jury.

Though Mr. Kassab maintained his innocence, he said in an interview that he had been prepared to plead guilty to avoid the risk of possibly decades in prison. His choice to face a jury came at the last minute, prompted by a judge's procedural misstep and what the 53-year-old laborer described as a decision not to tell a lie before God.

Enlarge Image
image
Gary Fields / The Wall Street Journal
Kenneth Kassab at the federal building in Marquette, Mich., in July, where he was acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.

If Mr. Kassab had pleaded guilty, he would have joined a growing number of federal defendants who take that option, often to avoid the lengthy prison sentences that can come with losing at trial. These days, not many people exercise their right to a jury trial; even fewer hear a "not guilty" verdict read by their peers.

The triumph of plea bargaining in the federal system, which has gathered pace in recent years, is nearly complete. Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion. That is up from 84% in 1990. During that period, the number of federal defendants nearly doubled amid a crackdown on crimes ranging from drug trafficking to fraud, while the number going to trial fell by nearly two-thirds.

This relentless growth in plea bargaining has sparked a backlash among lawyers, legal scholars and judges—evidenced by recent federal court decisions, including two from the Supreme Court. Weighing on many critics is the possibility illustrated by the Kassab case: that the innocent could feel pressured into pleading guilty.

More

Study Shows Innocent Plead Guilty at High Rate
The shrinking number of federal criminal defendants choosing to go to trial is "extraordinarily troubling," said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton and now a professor at Harvard Law School. Many basic protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and subsequent federal court decisions "are geared to a trial situation and not a bargaining situation," Prof. Gertner said.

Among the legal protections given up by a defendant when he pleads is the right to receive evidence from the prosecution that supports a claim of innocence. That means a person might plead guilty to a crime not knowing prosecutors are holding exculpatory evidence.

Behind the dominance of the plea bargain is the rapid growth in the number of federal criminal laws and the stiffening of sentences by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a board created in the 1980s. After scandals at Enron and other companies in the early 2000s, for example, Congress increased the potential sentence for certain types of fraud to 20 years from five years.

Enlarge Image
image
Jackie Stark / Mining Journal
John Lechner, shown in February in prison garb, was convicted.

Federal guidelines not only toughened punishments but also formalized a system to reward defendants who plead guilty by reducing sentences if they accept responsibility or cooperate with prosecutors, among other things. As part of plea deals, federal prosecutors often drop additional charges that could add years, or decades, to a sentence. Going to trial brings none of those benefits for the accused.

"The federal sentencing guidelines can make things very risky for clients. What you don't want is a client going to jail for the rest of his life," said Roscoe Howard, a Washington, D.C., defense attorney and former U.S. attorney during the administration of President George W. Bush.

For centuries, judges in England and the U.S. routinely resisted accepting plea bargains. In the 20th century, however, as the reach of the federal criminal justice system grew and federal courts became clogged with cases, plea bargaining became more common.

Lately, federal judges have again begun to question the practice. In a June decision, Colorado federal court judge John Kane rejected a plea agreement between the Justice Department and a man accused of viewing child pornography on his computer. Judge Kane objected to a routine clause in the plea agreement under which the defendant waived his right to appeal.

The judge said appellate review, even of plea deals, is often vital to ensure the constitutionality of a prosecution and the fairness of a sentence. The two sides subsequently reached a plea agreement that didn't include an appeals waiver.

Judge Kane's ruling followed two related decisions this year by the Supreme Court, which said defendants hadn't been adequately represented by their attorneys during the plea-bargaining process. Plea bargains "have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system" that defendants should receive the kind of protections associated with going to trial, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the decisions but wrote that the system encourages a prosecutor to charge an individual with so many criminal counts that it "effectively compels an innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense."

In an interview, Judge Kane pointed to the Supreme Court decisions in explaining his recent ruling, calling them "a tectonic shift in our jurisprudence" regarding the rights of defendants who engage in plea bargains.

[image]
Evidence in state courts suggests a basis for concern about the innocent pleading guilty. Of nearly 300 people convicted in state cases who were later cleared by DNA tests over the past two-plus decades, nearly 10% had pleaded guilty, according to the Innocence Project affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York. Because of the nature of the offenses, federal cases are less likely to have DNA evidence than state cases, which more typically involve crimes such as murder and rape.

Mr. Kassab's journey from guilty plea to acquittal started Nov. 15, 2010. According to court documents from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, he was working as a handyman at a hotel in Sault Ste. Marie, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, when the owner, John Lechner, told him he needed help in moving several dozen 50-pound bags.

In testimony at his trial and in an interview, Mr. Kassab said Mr. Lechner told him the bags, at a farm owned by the Lechner family, contained fertilizer and that he wanted to move them to guard against theft. In an interview from jail, Mr. Lechner said he was concerned that the materials would be stolen. They loaded the bags on a truck, and Mr. Lechner drove while Mr. Kassab rode along. They unloaded the bags at a house owned by the Lechner family.

In court documents, Mr. Kassab said the only time he questioned what he was moving was when he noticed the word "blasting" on the bags, though he added that he believed the bags, by themselves, were harmless.

The bags contained ammonium nitrate/fuel oil, also known as ANFO. In 1995, an ANFO-fueled bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

Several months after the 2010 move, Mr. Kassab was visited by federal agents. A government witness had taken photographs of him helping load the bags with Mr. Lechner, who was under investigation partly because of comments he had been overheard making about becoming a mercenary if the government ever failed.

Mr. Kassab said in the interview that agents visited several times, telling him he faced decades in prison if he didn't cooperate. The agents "just put the fear in me," he said.

On April 19, the 17th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, armed federal agents arrested Mr. Kassab. Prosecutors charged him with transporting explosives illegally and as a felon in possession of explosives. The latter charge was based on run-ins with the law Mr. Kassab had in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Justice Department didn't respond to requests for comment.

In a recent interview, Karl Numinen, Mr. Kassab's court-appointed lawyer, said he viewed the case as a tough one. Court records show that by 1989 Mr. Kassab had picked up his third DUI conviction, making him a felon under Michigan law. The following year, he walked away from a community corrections facility, adding an escape charge to his rap sheet. In 1991, again inebriated, he broke a police-car window with a rock, another felony.

Given ANFO's history, Mr. Kassab could have faced additional prison time for being connected to a possible terrorist act. If convicted at trial, Mr. Numinen said, Mr. Kassab was facing a maximum of nearly 24 years in prison. Such a threat is "just absolutely overwhelming to a person," the attorney added.

Mr. Numinen told his client his chances at trial were bleak, both men recall, especially since he would be tried with Mr. Lechner, who was being charged with explosives-related activities, including transporting ANFO without a permit. That raised the specter of guilt by association.

Though Mr. Kassab said he always felt he was innocent, he reluctantly agreed to a plea to avoid the risk of that long prison sentence. "Twenty, thirty years, my life's over," he said.

On June 5, Mr. Kassab entered a tentative guilty plea before federal magistrate judge Timothy Greeley to the unlawful transportation of explosive materials. If he went through with the deal, he could be sentenced to as little as two years in prison, according to his lawyer's calculation. The charge against him as a felon in possession of explosive materials would be dropped. Mr. Kassab was released on $10,000 bond.

Several days later, Mr. Kassab had what he recalled as "a few" beers, violating his terms of release. At a June 14 bond revocation hearing, according to a transcript of the proceeding, Judge Greeley revoked Mr. Kassab's release. Then, he asked Mr. Kassab to reaffirm his earlier plea.

As Mr. Kassab turned to leave the court, the judge called him back. He had forgotten to swear in Mr. Kassab. After doing so, the judge asked him, again, to reaffirm his plea.

Instead, the defendant said, "I want to withdraw my plea right now."

It was a spur-of-the-moment decision, albeit one that had been building for a while. The first time Mr. Kassab pleaded, he thought he must have technically been guilty because he had moved the bags. As time passed, he began to doubt his decision. The judicial miscue appeared to him to be message from God that he should switch and instead fight the case.

Having to retake the oath was a turning point, Mr. Kassab said in the interview. "I'm not going to lie to God."

A shocked Mr. Numinen took his client into a nearby conference room for an intense discussion. He recalled thinking: "We've gone through the guidelines and we've gone through the evidence against you. You don't know what you're doing."

Mr. Kassab told his lawyer, "When I first met you, you told me let's fight this. Why aren't you fighting it now?"

Mr. Numinen said he started out trying to convince Mr. Kassab to plead but "he convinced me" to take the case to a jury.

Mr. Kassab was once again Mr. Lechner's co-defendant. And their trial was only four days away.

As his attorney rushed to prepare, Mr. Kassab went back to jail. He said other prisoners told him, "Man, they're going to hang you. Nobody beats the government."

At the trial, Mr. Kassab took the stand and told the jury he thought he was just moving fertilizer for his boss. None of the government's witnesses presented evidence of darker intent, though some federal agents said Mr. Kassab should have known he was handling an explosive.

After two hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Mr. Lechner on six of eight counts, including illegal transportation and storage of explosive materials.

Mr. Kassab was acquitted on both charges he faced.

In an interview from jail where he awaits sentencing, Mr. Lechner acknowledged possessing and moving the materials but maintains he is innocent of a crime. It was "a mistake," he said. Mr. Lechner said he had had a license to possess the materials but let it lapse when he was injured.

Mr. Lechner said Mr. Kassab "is a good man." Mr. Kassab still works for the Lechner family, saying they have treated him well and that Mr. Lechner was wrongly accused.

Mike Forgette, a retired schoolteacher who was on the jury, said it took jurors about 20 minutes to decide Mr. Kassab wasn't guilty.

"We said it would be the same thing if you were working for somebody and the guy says 'load this up.' You don't read the bags, you don't even know if it's dangerous to your health. He was just an $8 an hour guy doing his job."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html

"95%" of U.S. convicts have not been found guilty by any jury:

https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf


Go ahead and defend the guy who decided that stealing was cool and even took his son along for the fun.

I am not defending stealing or taking sons along for fun; I am defending due process.


From the article: Young confessed to the burglaries.

Why did he do that?

[DamianTV]

How can the government restrict the rights of predicate felons? Equal Protection Under the Law? Shall Not Be Infringed?

And if the guy was a Cop, you know it never would have been an issue.