United States v. Hagerman
| Citation | 827 F.Supp.2d 102 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Case No. 5:10–CR–0462 (GTS). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Paul HAGERMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the N.D.N.Y., Of counsel: Tamara Thomson, Esq., Geoffrey J.L. Brown, Esq., Assistant United States Attorneys, Syracuse, NY, for the Government.
Lisa A. Peebles, Acting Federal Public Defender for the N.D.N.Y., Of counsel: Gene V. Primomo, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant.
On August 17, 2011, the Court sentenced Paul Hagerman (“Defendant”) following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) (). Before sentencing, the Government requested that the Court order Defendant to pay restitution to his crime's “victim” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259. During sentencing, the Court reserved decision on the issue of restitution, and indicated that it would decide the issue (including whether or not to hold an evidentiary hearing on restitution) in the future. This is the Court's decision on the issue of restitution.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUNDA. Government's Request for Restitution
On March 14, 2011, Defendant was adjudged guilty of committing a crime under Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (Text Minute Entry dated March 14, 2011.) More specifically, Defendant pleaded guilty to the following two crimes: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) by receiving child pornography “[f]rom on or about 2009 to July 2010”; and (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) by possessing child pornography “[o]n or about August 13, 2010.” (Dkt. No. 1, at 1–2 [Indictment]; Dkt. No. 37, at 7–8, 15 [].)
In May and June of 2011, the Government provided both the United States Probation Office and Defendant written documents detailing the losses that it asserted were subject to restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. ( See, e.g., Dkt. No. 21, at 5 [attaching ¶¶ 12, 13 of Presentence Report].) Among these written documents was a letter, dated June 21, 2011, from an attorney requesting that Defendant be made to pay restitution to his crime's “victim” (and her client), identified as Vicky,1 in the amount of $975,917.64 (nine hundred seventy-five thousand, nine hundred seventeen dollars and sixty-four cents), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259. (Dkt. No. 22, at 1.)
The letter from Vicky's representative attached 12 exhibits in support of her request. ( Id.) Among those 12 exhibits were the following documents: (1) a Victim Impact Statement and Letter to the Judge verified by Vicky on June 12, 2010; (2) a verified Victim Impact Statement by Vicky's mother dated October 1, 2010; (3) a verified Victim Impact Statement by Vicky's step-father dated October 1, 2010; (4) a verified written report, dated May 22, 2009, of a forensic psychological evaluation of Vicky, performed on April 10, 2009; (5) a verified written report, dated December 2, 2009, of a forensic psychological evaluation of Vicky, performed on November 6, 2009; (6) a verified written report, dated July 5, 2010, of a forensic psychological evaluation of Vicky, performed on May 29, 2010; (7) a transcript of a hearing, held on December 22, 2009, in which Vicky's forensic psychologist testified regarding his evaluation of her; (8) a verified vocational assessment of Vicky dated March 10, 2010; and (9) a forensic economic analysis of Vicky's lost wages dated November 10, 2010.
On June 23, 2011, the United States Probation Office issued the initial version of its Presentence Report, which attached, inter alia, the above-described Letter to the Judge and three Victim Impact Statements. (Dkt. No. 21, at 26–35.)
On July 22, 2011, Defendant opposed that request in writing, asked that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve asserted factual issues regarding restitution, and asked that “the restitution portion of the judgment be continued” so that “the sentencing [may] proceed as soon a[s] possible.” (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23.) On August 3, 2011, the Government joined in the written restitution request made by Vicky's representative. (Dkt. No. 26, at 2–9.)
On August 17, 2011, the Court sentenced Defendant. (Text Minute Entry dated August 17, 2011.) At the time, the Court indicated that, while restitution appeared to be mandatory under the circumstances, the amount of such restitution was far from clear. (Dkt. No. 38, 4–5 [].) As a result, the Court reserved decision on the issue of restitution, and indicated that it would decide the issue within 90 days. ( Id. at 5.) 2 On November 14, 2011, the Court extended the deadline for its decision until December 1, 2011. (Text Order filed Nov. 14, 2011.) As stated above, this is the Court's decision.
Because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties (who have demonstrated an adequate understanding of the issues raised by the Government's request), the Court need not, and will not, recite in detail the parties' arguments on the Government's request. ( See generally Dkt. No. 22 [Def.'s Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 26 [Government's Memo. of Law].)
Rather, the Court will note only that, at their core, the parties' briefs raise the following five issues: (1) under the circumstances, must the Court hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the Government's request for restitution; (2) was Vicky a “victim” of Defendant's crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2259; (3) does 18 U.S.C. § 2259 limit the losses that Vicky may recover pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E) to those proximately caused by Defendant's commission of the crime in question (or does it permit some other sort of causation, such as factual causation); (4) applying the correct standard of causation, what amount of Vicky's losses were caused by Defendant's commission of the crime in question; and (5) is it permissible, and appropriate, under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, for the Court to hold Defendant jointly and severally liable for payment of the full amount of restitution (rather than apportioning liability among the individuals to reflect the level of contribution to Vicky's loss and economic circumstances of each individual)?
The Government bears the burden of proof on each of these five issues by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) ( ).
B. Governing Statute
Section 2259 of Title 18 of the United States Code defines the individual harmed “as a result” of a defendant's crime committed under Chapter 110 of the United States Code as the crime's “victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c). Section 2259 further mandates that the Court issue an Order directing the defendant to pay that victim restitution equaling “the full amount of the victim's losses.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(1). Section 2259 defines “the full amount of the victim's losses” as “any costs incurred by the victim” for the following:
(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care;
(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation;
(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses;
(D) lost income;
(E) attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred; and
(F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3).
II. ANALYSISA. Whether the Court Must Hold an Evidentiary Hearing Before Deciding the Government's Request for Restitution, Under the Circumstances
After carefully considering the issue, the Court finds that, under the circumstances, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary before restitution may be ordered. The Court makes this finding for two reasons.
First, when Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 2259 in 1996, it clearly explained that, in some circumstances, the procedure for issuing restitution need not involve an evidentiary hearing. More specifically, pursuant to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lundquist
...may be ordered.The Court makes this finding for the two reasons stated by the Court in its recent decision of U.S. v. Hagerman, 827 F.Supp.2d 102, 107–10, 10–CV–0462, 2011 WL 6096505, at *3–5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011) (Suddaby, J.). The Court would add only that, under the circumstances of t......
-
Criminal law - First Circuit upholds restitution order without requiring evidence of defendant's causal contribution to victim's losses - United States v. Kearney.
...used to define "victim" in sections 3663A and 3664, which are cross-referenced in [section] 2259(b)(2). See United States v. Hagerman, 827 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (listing justifications for interpreting [section] 2259 as including proximate causation standard), rev'd, No. 11-3......