|
CHAIR’S MESSAGEgg
|
Robert M.A. Johnson
|
The ABA makes a difference. Effective Nov. 1, 2007, the United States
Sentencing Commission will greatly expand the policy under which courts
may, upon motion by the Bureau of Prisons, reduce a term of imprisonment
for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For many years,
these reductions were sought by BOP only for a prisoner near death. Under the new policy statement, a court
may reduce the term of imprisonment for many more stated reasons and is
open to other thoughtful reasons.
Our Section pursued this policy change over the last several
years. Led by Margaret Love, the
Section’s Corrections and Sentencing Division initiated the effort to
change the policy in 2000. Our Kennedy Commission policy statement resulted
in the ABA
adopting policy favoring expansion of the sentence reduction policy by the
United States Sentencing Commission.
In March of this year, Chair-elect Steve Saltzburg, at the
invitation of the Commission, presented an ABA-proposed policy statement on
sentence reduction. The policy adopted by the Commission went a long way
toward adopting the ABA’s
approach. (See more details.)
At our Spring Council meeting, we will be privileged to hear
from Daniel Bellemare on the independence of the prosecution function. Mr. Bellemare was the Head of the Federal
Prosecution Service in Canada
from 1993 until 2006. He is now
Special Adviser to the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney
General of Canada. Since the creation of the International
Association of Prosecutors until Dec. 2006, Mr. Bellemare served on its
executive committee and was its vice president from 1998 to 2006. His significant international experience
will permit him to speak to the independence of the prosecution function
with authority and provide insights into how other countries deal with this
issue.
|
NEWS / UPDATES…
New Resource from the Cyber Crime
Committee: Prevent Identity Theft: Follow
These Tips
Audio: Cyber Crime on the Rise
New: White Collar Crime Committee E-Newsletter (May 2007 Edition)
Nominees for
2007-2008 Leadership Positions (includes bio for each nominee)
UPCOMING EVENTS…
|
May 16-18
|
17th Annual National Institute
on Health Care Fraud, New Orleans, LA
|
|
May 23-25
|
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
May 24
|
The New Frontier: Defense
Procurement Fraud, Baltimore, MD
|
|
June 25-26
|
National Institute on Computing
and the Law:
From Steps to Strides into the New Age, San Francisco, CA
|
|
Aug. 9-14
|
ABA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA
Criminal
Justice Section Meetings– Hilton
Hotel (Aug. 9-12); CLE Programs
|
See other Criminal Justice Section events: Calendar of Events.
SUPREME COURT CASES…
Scott v. Harris
Harris sued Scott, a police officer, for damages after Officer Scott
bumped Harris' car during a high-speed vehicle chase. The ensuing crash left
Harris paralyzed. Harris claims that Scott's use of deadly force (his car)
violated Harris's Fourth Amendment rights. In district court, Scott claimed he
had qualified immunity from this suit because his actions were reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment, and because the law at the time was not
sufficiently clear to put Scott on notice that his actions were
unlawful.
The district court denied Scott's claim and the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed, holding that Scott did not have qualified immunity
because (1) a jury could find that Scott used unreasonable force in
"seizing" Harris's car, thereby violating Harris's Fourth Amendment
rights, and (2) the law of the circuit was sufficiently clear at the time of
the incident to give reasonable law enforcement officers “fair notice” that
ramming a vehicle under these circumstances was unlawful.
In an 8- 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority,
stated that because the car chase Harris initiated posed a substantial and
immediate risk of serious physical injury to others, Scott’s attempt to
terminate the chase by forcing Harris off the road was reasonable, and Scott
was entitled to summary judgment.
See other Supreme Court Case Updates
NEW PUBLICATIONS…
|
