United States v. Modjewski, 13–3012.
Citation | 783 F.3d 645 |
Decision Date | 13 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 13–3012.,13–3012. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Andrew MODJEWSKI, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Stephanie Michelle Zimdahl, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Jeffrey J. Levine Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before ROVNER, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Modjewski presented the testimony of a psychiatric expert during his sentencing hearing in hopes that it would reduce his sentence for possession and delivery of an extremely large amount of child pornography. At the sentencing hearing, after the defense conducted its direct examination and the government cross-examined the expert, the district court judge engaged in lengthy and direct questioning of the expert, much of it regarding whether Modjewski could be classified as having a pedophilic identification. Though the expert said Modjewski could not, the judge came to her own contrary conclusion based on her knowledge of the field. Modjewski now argues the judge should have sua sponte recused herself. We reject Modjewski's argument that the judge's questioning rose to the level of personal bias since she was testing the reliability of the expert's opinion. We also find neither the judge's general knowledge of the relevant field nor her determination that Modjewski was more accurately classified having a pedophilic identification constituted personal knowledge of a disputed evidentiary fact, since neither was a fact. Further, we find that Modjewski waived his right to challenge the district court's purported failure to address the arguments in mitigation raised in the appeal. We therefore affirm Modjewski's sentence.
Modjewski pled guilty to three counts of possession and transportation of electronic child pornography. His collection was massive, consisting of over 12,500 images and 700 videos. One analyst from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children called it the “most complete collection” of child pornography she had investigated.
At sentencing, Modjewski presented the expert testimony of Dr. Lisa Rone, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Rone reiterated the findings in her report that Modjewski suffered from post-traumatic stress and bipolar disorders
. She testified that he had minimal risk factors for re-offending since he did not have a personality or impulse control disorder and was being adequately treated. She also opined that he was not a pedophile, based on her “experience with people who have had post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood sexual abuse and treating them” and her discussion with Modjewski. The government elicited testimony that Dr. Rone's opinions were based on only one meeting with Modjewski and she did not conduct any tests on him, relying on tests conducted by others, and she did not review any of the images he downloaded or traded.
After the government rested, the district court judge asked questions of Dr. Rone. Those questions spanned eleven minutes and eleven pages of transcript, and primarily related to Dr. Rone's diagnosis that Modjewski was not a pedophile. For example:
Defense counsel did not object to the court's questions (aside from an occasional relevance objection) or the fact that the court was questioning the expert. When the judge finished, defense counsel asked Dr. Rone further questions on redirect.
At the hearing's conclusion, the judge noted: The court continued:
The court found three mitigating factors and sentenced Modjewski to a 15–year sentence, which was 30 months below the 210–262 month advisory guideline range. After the sentence was imposed, the government asked, “if the defendant has other issues he felt should have been addressed by the [sentencing judge] in [her] statement [, that the sentence]he raise them now at this time.” Thereafter, the sentencing judge, addressing Modjewski's counsel, stated, “I have read all of the filings, but if you feel that there was something that I needed to address specifically, ... I would be happy to do so.” In response, counsel only raised two issues related to treatment programs for Modjewski.
Modjewski appeals his sentence.
Modjewski argues the district court judge should have sua sponte recused herself because she was biased or because a reasonable person would question her impartiality. He argues both 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(1) required recusal. Under § 455(a), a judge shall recuse herself “in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Under § 455(b)(1), a judge should recuse herself where she “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Modjewski must present “compelling evidence” of bias so that a reasonable person would be convinced the judge is biased. Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir.2002).
First, we reject the government's argument that Modjewski's motion was untimely. He appealed to this court when the relevant acts—the judge's questions and statements—came to light. See United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir.2010) (). However, he did so without filing a motion to disqualify with the district court or a writ of mandamus with this court. We cannot review a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) without such filings. Id. at 352. Recusal under § 455(a) is of little use to Modjewski anyway since “it's too late for us to order the judge removed from the case, because she's through with it.” In re Bergeron, 636 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir.2011) ; see also Diekemper, 604 F.3d at 352. Our ability to review a recusal argument under § 455(b) without the writ and what standard of review we use are “less clear.” Diekemper, 604 F.3d at 351. As the government points out, we have reviewed recusal arguments under § 455(b) for the first time on appeal without a writ or motion filed with the district court, and have done so under both the clear and plain error...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DR Distribs., LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc.
...parties occasionally allege that judges holding expertise in particular areas "misuse" that expertise. See, e.g., United States v. Modjewski, 783 F. 3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2015). Being an expert should be commended, not condemned. Id. Although the Court does not necessarily hold itself out t......
-
United States v. Bridgewater, 19-2522
...of his sentence, and we thus review it for abuse of discretion.In support of its position, the government cites United States v. Modjewski , 783 F.3d 645, 654–55 (7th Cir. 2015) and United States v. Garcia-Segura , 717 F.3d 566, 569 (7th Cir. 2013). In Garcia-Segura , we "encourage[d] sente......
-
United States v. Barr
...largely unlimited either as to the kind of information [it] may consider, or the source from which it may come." United States v. Modjewski, 783 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir.2015) (citation and internal quote omitted). Furthermore, because sentencing is a "non-jury proceeding[], questioning by th......
-
United States v. Beachem
...unlimited either as to the kind of information [it] may consider, or the source from which it may come." United States v. Modjewski, 783 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 489 F.3d 794, 796-97 (7th Cir. 2007)). There wasn't a term binding the gover......
-
Trials
...Cir. 2013) (recusal not required because any knowledge judge had about defendant gained through judicial capacity); U.S. v. Modjewski, 783 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2015) (recusal not required in child pornography case because judge’s general expertise in child exploitation not specific “per......