U.S. v. Medas
| Decision Date | 01 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03CR1048.,03CR1048. |
| Citation | 323 F.Supp.2d 436 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Karl Neil Raymond MEDAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Robert M. Radick, U.S. Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.
The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, United States District Judge for the U.S. Court for the District of Utah Central Division, authored a Memorandum Opinion and Order Finding Application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional. That opinion spread over 39 pages of meticulous analysis of Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2004), persuasively concludes that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional. This Court is driven to arrive at the same conclusion for the reasons stated by Judge Cassell in a language that is eloquent in its simplicity and clarity.
The case before him, United States of America v. Brent Croxford, Case No 2:02-CR-00302 (PGC), decided June 29, 2004, just five days after the Supreme Court decided Blakely, charged the defendant in a two count indictment with sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), Count One, and with possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), Count Two. Shortly before trial, the defendant absconded and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was found one week later in Knoxville, Tennessee after an apparent suicide attempt. After being returned to Utah, a psychological and psychiatric examination was ordered. The report The report of those examinations found that he was competent to stand trial.
A plea agreement was then reached with the government. The defendant pleading guilty to Count One, with Count Two to be dismissed. A Guideline sentence of 121-151 months was anticipated by that agreement.
The final presentence report subsequently prepared added an obstruction of justice enhancement based upon his pretrial flight; because the victim was under the age of twelve, the base offense level was increased by four; because the defendant was the parent of the child victim, two levels were added; two more levels were added for the pre-flight obstruction of justice. The defendant photographed another young victim under the age of twelve, and four levels were added for relevant conduct and by two more because the defendant was that victim's foster parent. Those calculations produced a Guideline range of 151-188 months. Those enhancements, not based on the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant, led the court to the inescapable conclusion required by Blakely that they violated his right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
The procedural and factual posture of the case before this Court is significantly different and raises issues which, given the immediacy with which they must be addressed, are more challenging. The defendant was charged in a six count indictment with Conspiracy to import 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 (Count I); importing 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1) (Count II); conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count III); possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count IV); an alien being found in the United States without the express consent of the Attorney General after being deported following the commission of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Count V); and making a materially false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Count VI).
At the end of the trial, the jury was given the traditional instructions to which no exception was taken. On the drug counts, one of the elements in each, the jury was instructed to determine whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 500 grams or more of cocaine was inherent in the offense. After the jury retired to deliberate, a verdict, sheet simply directing the jury to indicate whether they found the defendant guilty or not guilty on each of the six counts was presented to counsel for their approval which was given. The verdict sheet was marked as a court exhibit and provided to the jury. Immediately after the jury retired to deliberate the government submitted a 20 page Supplemental Verdict Sheet with a request that it, too, be provided to the jury. That Supplemental Verdict Sheet, the government urged, was the legitimate offspring of Blakely and is here displayed.
03 CR 1048 (ERIC)
SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT SHEET
AS TO COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy To Import Cocaine)
Only if you have found the defendant guilty of Count One, please answer the following questions:
A. Do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment and that the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive?
If your answer to question A is no, do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) of the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment and that the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive?
If your answer to questions A and B are no, do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment and that the conspiracy involved fewer than S participants?
Yes
No
D. ANSWER REGARDLESS OF YOUR ANSWERS TO A, B AND C
Do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant obstructed or impeded the administration of justice during the course of the investigation or prosecution of the conspiracy to import cocaine charged in Count One?
Do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's obstructive conduct related (i) to the conspiracy to import cocaine charged in Count One of the indictment, or (ii) to a closely related offense?
Yes
No
F. ANSWER REGARDLESS OF ANSWERS TO A, B, C, D or E
Do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant engaged in narcotics-related offenses as part of the same course of conduct as the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment?
Which of the following substances, if any, do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, were the subject of narcotics-related offenses engaged in by the defendant as part of the same course of conduct as the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment?
— Cocaine
— Marijuana
H. ANSWER ONLY IF RESPONSE TO G INCLUDES COCAINE
Which of the following quantities, if any, do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, were the subject of narcotics-related offenses engaged in by the defendant as part of the same course of conduct as the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment?
150 kilograms or more of cocaine
— at least 50 kilograms but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine
— at least 15 kilogram but less than 50 kilograms of cocaine
— at least 5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms of cocaine
— at least 3.5 kilograms but less than 5 kilograms of cocaine
at least 2 kilograms but less than 3.5 kilograms of cocaine
at least 500 grams but less than 2 kilograms of cocaine
— at least 400 grams but less than 500 grams of cocaine
— at least 300 grams but less than 400 grams of cocaine
at least 200 grams but less than 300 grams of cocaine
at least 100 grams but less than 200 grams of cocaine
at least 50 grams but less than 100 grams of cocaine
at least 25 grams but less than 50 grams of cocaine
less than 25 grams of cocaine
I. ANSWER ONLY IF RESPONSE TO G INCLUDES MARIJUANA
Which of the following quantities, if any, do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, were the subject of narcotics-related offenses engaged in by the defendant as part of the same course of conduct as the conspiracy to import charged in Count One of the indictment? (NOTE: 1 kilogram equals approximately 2.2 pounds.)
at least 100 kilograms but less than 400 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 80 kilograms but less than 100 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 60 kilograms but less than 80 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 40 kilograms but less than 60 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 20 kilograms but less than 40 kilograms of marijuana
at least 10 kilograms but less than 20 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 5 kilograms but less than 10 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 2.5 kilograms but less than 5 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 1 kilogram but less than 2.5 kilograms of marijuana
— at least 250 grams but less than 1 kilogram of marijuana
— at least 250 grams of marijuana
AS TO COUNT TWO
(Aiding and Abetting the Importation of Cocaine)
Only if you have found the defendant guilty of Count Two, please answer the following questions:
A. Do you find that the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was an organizer or leader in the importation charged in Count Two of the indictment and that the importation charged in Count Two of the indictment involved five or more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mueffelman
...United States v. Croxford, 324 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1239, 1246, 2004 WL 1521560, at *7, *13 (D.Utah, July 7, 2004); United States v. Medas, 323 F.Supp.2d 436 (E.D.N.Y.2004); United States v. Shamblin, 323 F.Supp.2d 757, 766-67 (S.D.W.Va.2004); Transcript of Re-sentencing Hearing, United States v......
-
U.S. v. Ameline
...States v. Croxford, No. 2:02-CR-00302-PGC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12825, at *1 (D.Utah July 12, 2004); United States v. Medas, 323 F.Supp.2d 436, 2004 WL 1498183 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004). Finally, echoing the Fifth Circuit's decision in Pineiro, two district courts have concluded that Blakely......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, CR.A. 6:04-00042.
...F.Supp.2d 1273 (D.Utah 2004); U.S. v. Lamoreaux, 2004 WL 1557283, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13225 (W.D.Mo. July 7, 2004); U.S. v. Medas, 323 F.Supp.2d 436 (E.D.N.Y.2004); U.S. v. Shamblin, 323 F.Supp.2d 757 (S.D.W.Va.2004); U.S. v. Watson, CR 03-0146 (D.D.C. June 30, 2004); U.S. v. Fanfan, No. ......
-
U.S. v. Booker
...v. Croxford, 324 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1239, 1246, 2004 WL 1521560, at *7, *13 (D.Utah July 7, 2004); United States v. Medas, 323 F.Supp.2d 436, 437, 2004 WL 1498183, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004); United States v. Shamblin, 323 F.Supp.2d 757, 766, 2004 WL 1468561, at *8 (S.D.W.Va. June 30, 2004)......