Tag: misdemeanor

Scholarship round-up II – two new articles by Jack Chin

CCRC board member Jack Chin, Professor of Law at U.C. Davis, has recently posted two important articles about collateral consequences.  One is a general overview of various recent proposals to reform the way collateral consequences are treated in the justice system, which will be published as part of a report on scholarship on criminal justice reform edited by Professor Eric Luna. The other argues that under the Grand Jury Clause of the Constitution certain federal misdemeanors may only be prosecuted by indictment because of the severe collateral consequences they carry.   Chin and his co-author John Ormonde propose that “[m]ore thoughtful evaluation of misdemeanor cases before charge would often terminate cases which wind up being dismissed after charge,” thereby sparing less serious offenders from the stigma of a criminal record.  Because federal law makes no provision for sealing or expunging nonconviction records, even dismissed charges will appear on a rap sheet. Here are links to the two articles with their abstracts: Gabriel J. Chin, Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction in Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., forthcoming 2017): For many people convicted of crime, the greatest effect will not be imprisonment, but being marked as a criminal and subjected to collateral consequences. Consequences can include loss of civil rights, public benefits, and ineligibility for employment, licenses, and permits. Often applicable for life, the United States, the 50 states, and their agencies and subdivisions impose collateral consequences based on convictions from any jurisdiction. Collateral consequences are so numerous and scattered as to be virtually uncountable. In recent years, the American Law Institute, ABA, and Uniform Law Commission all have proposed reforms. Collateral consequences should be: (1) Collected so that defendants, lawyers, judges and policymakers can know what they are; (2) Incorporated into counseling, plea bargaining, sentencing and other aspects of the criminal process; (3) Subject to relief so that individuals can pursue law-abiding lives, and regain equal status; and (4) Limited to those that evidence shows reasonably promote public safety.     Gabriel J. Chin & John Ormonde, Infamous Misdemeanors and the Grand Jury Clause, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 102 (forthcoming 2017) Under an overlooked body of constitutional law, many more federal offenses must be prosecuted by grand jury indictment than is now the practice. Current rules provide that felonies must be prosecuted by grand jury indictment, but misdemeanor charges may be based on a prosecutor’s information, or even a “ticket” issued by a law enforcement officer. However, serious consequences fall on people convicted of federal misdemeanors, including deportation, sex offender or other criminal registration, ineligibility for public benefits, and loss of civil rights. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the Supreme Court held in a series of cases, never overruled, that to charge an infamous misdemeanor required a grand jury indictment. The Court held that infamous offenses were ones potentially resulting in stigmatizing punishments degrading the offender’s status, indicating that the person is less than a full member of the community. These include corporal punishment, incarceration in a prison or penitentiary (as opposed to a jail), loss of civil rights or imposition of civil disabilities, and convictions implying moral turpitude. Many federal misdemeanors carry these consequences. And federal misdemeanors are much more likely to be dismissed without trial than felonies. More thoughtful evaluation of misdemeanor cases before charge would often terminate cases which wind up being dismissed after charge. As a result, thousands of Americans would avoid the stigma of a criminal record where it is unwarranted. This is what the framers of the Constitution intended. Read more

“Justice Is Swift as Petty Crimes Clog Courts”

In a recent national study of case processing in the nation’s misdemeanor courts, Wall Street Journal reporters Gary Fields and John Emschwiller document how “blindingly swift” justice is for the “millions of Americans charged each year with misdemeanor crimes”: In Florida, misdemeanor courts routinely disposed of cases in three minutes or less, usually with a guilty plea, according to a 2011 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers study. In Detroit, court statistics show, a district judge on an average day has over 100 misdemeanor cases on his or her docket–or one every four minutes. In Miami, public defenders often hardly have time to introduce themselves to their misdemeanor clients before the cases are over. . . . In a Houston courtroom one day recently, defendants–sometimes individually, sometimes in groups of up to nine . . . , pleaded guilty, received their sentences and got a “good luck” from the judge in less than 30 seconds. It appears that very little has changed in the forty years since the Supreme Court in Argersinger v. Hamlin bemoaned the assembly line that characterized the processing of misdemeanor offenses at that time.  The Court noted: Wherever the visitor looks at the system, he finds great numbers of defendants being processed by harassed and overworked officials.  Suddenly it becomes clear that, for most defendants in the criminal process, there is scant regard for them as individuals. They are numbers on dockets, faceless ones to be processed and sent on their way.” (emphasis added) The Argersinger Court noted that uncounseled defendants were pleading guilty, often at their initial appearance before a judge, and that there were harmful consequences that flowed from convictions of even so-called minor crimes.  To remedy the national crisis in misdemeanor courts that existed even in the 1970s, the Court held that the Gideon right to counsel in felonies must be extended to all defendants, no matter how seemingly minor the charges, if the accused stood to be sentenced to any period of incarceration. Nowadays, it is increasingly common for defendants to be represented by counsel at their initial appearance, even when charged with minor misdemeanors.  But even with lawyers, the Wall Street Journal study shows that there is (still) “scant regard for them as individuals. They are numbers on dockets, faceless ones to be processed and sent on their way.” In New York City, where I practice, the assembly line of guilty pleas drones on.  Even with the presence of counsel, the practice of quick and dirty guilty pleas persists in what has come to be known derisively, but accurately, as meet ‘em, greet ‘em, and plead ‘em.  While the presence of lawyers is a necessary condition it is certainly not sufficient – attention must be paid to what those lawyers actually do (or fail to do). The swift guilty plea must be condemned for multiple reasons.  For starters, at the time of an arraignment plea, none of the institutional players — prosecutor, defense attorney or judge — know much of anything about the accused or any actual victims.  At the moment of the plea, there has been virtually no fact, let alone legal, investigation, and no discovery of a meaningful sort. Further, in the present era of quality-of-life or “Broken Windows” policing, where courts are clogged with massive numbers of arrests for minor crimes and offenses, rapid and rampant guilty pleas serve to shield police conduct and the constitutionality of their arrests from any kind of substantial scrutiny. But perhaps the biggest concern with the prevalence of speedy guilty pleas is the ever-growing host of negative consequences that attach to and flow from those pleas.  Even a guilty plea to a statutorily designated non-criminal offense or violation can lead to deportation, eviction, loss of various licenses, inability to obtain loans, etc.  In a recent NPR story, Robin Steinberg of the Bronx Defenders argues that because collateral consequences are so numerous and their application so uncertain, “indigent defendants need access to subject-matter experts in areas like family law and immigration to know how the laws will play out in their individual circumstances, before coming to the plea-bargaining table and before the laws are imposed.” With misdemeanor cases far outpacing felonies (the National Center for State Courts puts the percentage at 70%-80% of the annual criminal docket nationally), it is in the Criminal Court where most New Yorkers experience the criminal justice system.  As advocates of procedural justice argue, the treatment people receive in the courts will go a long way to affecting how they act in the future.  It is an obvious truth that being shuttled through an opaque and uncaring system does not engender trust and respect for the Criminal Court. The Wall Street Journal, by shining a light on the way that millions of people are treated in misdemeanor court, does a great service to all people interested in promoting fairness and decency in our courts.  Now the question becomes whether those with the power to change the way things are done have the corresponding will to do so.   Read more

Ohio’s on-line inventory of collateral consequences – a useful tool for defense lawyers

Kelley Williams-Bolar was a single mother in Akron Ohio, a teacher’s aide who was studying to become a teacher herself.  Her story made headlines in 2011, when she was accused of misusing her father’s home address to enroll her two young daughters in a public school they were not entitled to attend.  After her own home was burglarized, Kelley had enrolled the girls in their grandfather’s school district, so they could spend each afternoon after school safely at their grandfather’s house.  To make this possible she had signed a “grandparent affidavit” saying that the girls lived with their grandfather.  The new school district ultimately rejected the affidavit, and she withdrew the girls from their new school at the end of the school year. Ohio’s “grandparent affidavit” form contains a printed warning, advising that anyone who submits a false affidavit can be charged with “Falsification, a first degree misdemeanor.”  But that warning gave no hint of what would actually happen to Kelley.  Eighteen months after her daughters left the new school, the district attorney charged Kelley with felony Grand Theft, claiming she had “stolen” tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of tuition for her children. Particularly given Kelley’s career aspiration to be a teacher, her defense lawyer could have made good use of a new online resource called CIVICC (Civil Impacts of Criminal Convictions), a computerized compendium of state collateral consequences linked to the crimes that trigger them.  (Kelley’s felony conviction was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor by Governor John Kasich, high level intervention that cannot be counted on to substitute for effective advocacy.) At the CIVICC website, counsel in a case like Kelley’s could run a quick search using the keyword “theft,” and learn right away that conviction on the Grand Theft charge would expose her to 509 possible collateral consequences (“civil impacts”) under Ohio law, burdens she would bear long after her criminal sentence was complete. Those consequences could include denial of a teaching license and ineligibility for employment in a school.   Even if she received a comparatively light sentence for the offense, the simple fact of conviction would likely destroy Kelley’s hopes of becoming a teacher.  CIVICC would also show the same consequences flowing from any conviction for felony Tampering with Records, the conviction that Kelley ultimately received. In contrast, counsel would learn that a conviction for Falsification — the misdemeanor offense specifically identified on the grandparent affidavit form — would trigger “only” 192 collateral consequences, and the worst threat to Kelley’s teaching ambitions would be the right of licensing officials to question her about her criminal record.  The stark contrast between these long-term outcomes would provoke at minimum a serious attorney-client discussion about priorities.   The knowledge could significantly influence defense strategy and perhaps lead to a better outcome — not only for Kelley but for the state as well, as research has shown that secure employment offers by far the best assurance that an ex-offender will go on to live a law-abiding life. The CIVICC database is an ongoing project of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center in partnership with the Ohio Public Defender’s office.  The project began in 2010 to address a constellation of related circumstances that Ohio shares with other states across the country:  The explosion of criminal convictions in recent decades has produced a statewide population where 1 in 6 Ohioans has a felony or misdemeanor conviction record. Collateral consequences have proliferated correspondingly: CIVICC presently contains 844 and counting, nearly all enacted in the last 40 years. 95% of convictions are the result of guilty pleas, entered by defendants who have been informed of the potential criminal penalties but have no clue of the long-term collateral consequences they will confront when the sentence is complete. The cumulative economic effects of mass incarceration and lifelong collateral consequences have finally begun to capture attention from policymakers across the political spectrum. The collateral consequences in Ohio law are scattered throughout the statutory and administrative codes with no discernible order or system.  Anyone searching the codes for the collateral consequences of a particular conviction — whether a defense lawyer, a returning citizen, a workforce development professional or a social service volunteer — will spend hours if not days winding through the labyrinth of potentially applicable laws and rules. In response to these multiple concerns, CIVICC was created to collect in one searchable online database all the collateral consequences of conviction that exist in Ohio statutes.  More than that, its “relational database” structure enables users to see which collateral consequences are linked to which offenses under Ohio law.  Starting with an “Offense search,” the user can look up a particular criminal offense or type of offense, and find out what civil penalties that offense will trigger in addition to the court-imposed sentence.  Starting with an “Impact search,” the user can look up a particular right, privilege or field of endeavor, and find out what types of criminal conviction might block access to it. The CIVICC database first went online experimentally in March 2011, with information about 56 “civil impacts” of conviction.  It now contains 844 consequences, of which more than 300 have been newly enacted and/or amended since March, 2011.  CIVICC’s design and features have similarly evolved to meet the practical needs of its widely varied users. Certain essential characteristics do not change, however.  Among them are the following: CIVICC provides a narrative description of each consequence, which is searchable in an “Impact Keyword” query.  Many descriptions include citations to the multiple statutes and regulations that must be read together in order to understand a single consequence. CIVICC’s searchable content identifies the type of case outcome required to trigger each consequence. This is particularly valuable in Ohio, whose collateral consequence statutes vary enormously in their reach.  Some collateral consequences can be triggered by an arrest or indictment, some by participation in a diversion program, and some by an offense that has been officially “sealed” or “expunged.”  Juvenile defenders value the ability to use the Impact keyword “juvenile” and find the consequences that can be triggered specifically by a juvenile adjudication. CIVICC search results provide a link to the full text each offense statute and each consequence statute, plus additional links to certain exceptions found in Ohio statutes and regulations.  This is possible because Ohio provides online public access to the official text of its statutes and regulations via Lawriter. CIVICC is designed to be easy to use, but each page has a link to the User Guide/FAQs which can also be downloaded for offline use. OJPC first envisioned CIVICC as a one-year project but after almost five years it is still under construction, continually expanding with both new and updated content even as it handles over one thousand public queries each month.  While CIVICC users are anonymous, system reports show that queries come from community organizations, employers, courts, government agencies, public library users, public defenders, treatment providers, law firms and academic institutions, both within and outside Ohio.  Such reports echo what OJPC has learned directly from the users themselves:  that CIVICC is being used in a wide range of settings for purposes that include: identifying a particular applicable collateral consequences, as required when applying for a Certificate of Achievement and Employability (“CAE”) or Certificate for Qualification for Employment (“CQE”) under recently enacted Ohio laws; finding the range of collateral consequences that may result from a particular kind of criminal case outcome; identifying all the collateral consequences related to a particular occupation or field of study; examining the scope and effects of particular legislative enactments; and evaluating and comparing the types of collateral consequences that affect various segments of the community. News and inquiries from CIVICC users feed OJPC’s determination make continual improvements in CIVICC’s scope and functionality.  Encouragement comes especially from OJPC’s current collaboration with community college faculty, administrators and students; and from our work with Ohio’s statewide Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition, which involves state agencies and community organizations in advancing social and economic success for individuals with criminal records and for their families and communities. OJPC provides training about CIVICC and collateral consequences to user groups of all sizes and stripes, and we welcome inquiries and insights from all sources.  The website’s Contact page provides conventional contact information plus a direct e-mail link for user questions.  Try CIVICC at http://CIVICCOhio.org, and let us know what you think!   Read more

California’s Proposition 47 and collateral consequences: Part I (sentencing consequences)

In the general election on November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47 with almost 60% of the vote.  The Proposition will impact a wide range of sentences in California courts, and in the federal courts as well.  A number of crimes that could be, and often were, charged in California as felonies, such as commercial burglary, forgery, grand theft, and certain drug crimes, will now be charged as misdemeanors, so that their effect on a person’s criminal history will be substantially diminished.  A whole range of state felony drug offenses that could result in enhanced sentences in federal drug cases, even life imprisonment, or career offender status under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, have overnight become relatively harmless misdemeanors. Significantly, Proposition 47 applies not only to persons who are currently “serving a sentence,” but also to those who have already fully served their sentences.  This means that thousands of people with California felony convictions can under certain circumstances petition to have their case recalled, the crime re-designated a misdemeanor, and be resentenced.  Once reduced to misdemeanors, qualifying crimes can be set aside under California Penal Code § 1203.4 (felony or misdemeanor cases sentenced to probation) or 1203.4a (misdemeanor cases sentenced to prison).  These provisions allow a defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty, enter a not guilty plea, and have the judge dismiss the case.  The record can then be expunged. The importance of this retroactive effect of the new law cannot be over-estimated.  While Proposition 47 gained popular support as a way of reducing California’s prison population, its broadest and most significant long-term effect may be to reduce the impact of collateral consequences on people in the community.  For criminal defense lawyers, Proposition 47 offers a significant way to reduce a client’s exposure in subsequent prosecutions. It is amazing that just a few months ago, a defendant with two prior felony drug possessions in state court, and currently charged with drug distribution in federal court, faced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.  Now he can have those California priors reduced to misdemeanors, and then dismissed, so that, under certain circumstances, they can no longer be used to enhance the federal sentence.  Generally, convictions that are set-aside for reasons not involving innocence or errors of law will still result in criminal history points.  Counsel might argue in resentencing that the reduction from felony to misdemeanor supports a finding that the conviction over-represents the defendant’s criminal history. People whose federal sentences were enhanced in the past by crimes that are now misdemeanors under state law may be able to seek relief, after their state convictions are set aside. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 497 (1994).    Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 303 (2005), cited both Custis and Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 381 (2001), for the proposition that “a defendant given a sentence enhanced for a prior conviction is entitled to a reduction if the earlier conviction is vacated.” Finally, Prop 47 may offer support to those seeking clemency.  When a person’s record of multiple felonies is suddenly transformed into multiple misdemeanors, the case for commutation of sentence becomes even more convincing. The Proposition provides relief to anyone convicted in the past of a wide range of property and drug crimes, as long as the person does not have a “disqualifying prior.”  Disqualifying priors include offenses requiring sex offender registration, and specified violent offenses.  For example, the crime of 2nd degree burglary/commercial burglary where the value of the property did not exceed $950, becomes a new misdemeanor called “shoplifting.”   If the value of a forgery or theft involves less than $950, the crime becomes a misdemeanor.  Similar treatment is given to felony insufficient check funds convictions, and receiving stolen property.  Simple possession of heroin, “concentrated cannabis,” and methamphetamine, once charged as felonies, are now misdemeanors. Simply by going to court to have their felony charges converted to misdemeanors, people can end up with a criminal record that looks very different, and has a very different effect. There are a huge number of eligible Proposition 47 cases out there.  For example, by the Friday following the November 4th election, San Diego County Public Defenders had submitted nearly 5000 petitions for conversion of felonies to misdemeanors.  There are a lot of resources already on the web, for example http://www.safeandjust.org/recordchange.  More will doubtless be appearing in the days ahead. (Ed. Note:  The impact of Prop 47 in the civil context, notably on employment and licensing opportunities, and on immigration status, will be the subject of Part II of this article.)  Read more

Playing nice in criminal court: “Crashing the Misdemeanor System”

As the Supreme Court recently acknowledged in Lafler v. Cooper (2012), American criminal justice “is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”  Nowhere is that statement truer than in the lower courts, where millions of misdemeanor arrests are resolved, or, to use the lingo of the criminal court, “disposed of,” without even a whiff of a trial. In a provocative New York Times Op-Ed, “Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System,” Michelle Alexander raised the prospect of organizing people to refuse to plea bargain.  Professor Jenny Roberts takes a cue from Alexander and manages to be even more rebellious.  In Crashing the Misdemeanor System, 70 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1089 (2013), she urges much more specifically that defense attorneys focus their energy on taking down extant misdemeanor systems that are best characterized as guilty plea mills. Roberts argues that “the most minor misdemeanor conviction has serious implications for so many people,” and bemoans the fact that nevertheless most misdemeanors are given short shrift by all institutional players — judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.  Her article is a clarion call for defense attorneys to reimagine, refocus and reinvigorate their misdemeanor practice, especially in an era of massive arrests for minor crimes made popular by Broken Windows, or quality-of-life, policing. Roberts addresses the literature on, and practice of, criminal defense triage whereby lawyers in public defense organizations give felonies representational priority over so-called minor charges.  She rightly points out that such practice is born ultimately out of a lingering belief that misdemeanors are just not that serious, and takes pains to highlight the myriad disastrous consequences that can flow from a misdemeanor charge.  Further, with misdemeanor arrests far outpacing felonies, it is in those cases where the majority of people experience the criminal justice system. She argues persuasively that public defense offices should actually consider prioritizing their misdemeanor practice.  After all, in the hurly burly of the typical misdemeanor court, the chances for a defense attorney to uncover, let alone discuss, devastating attendant consequences are remote.  Felony practice, on the other hand, tends to run more slowly and thereby incorporates greater potential and opportunities for defense counsel to surface collateral consequences. Roberts forces institutional defense attorneys to confront a painful reality – the present, and ever-growing, system of mass arrests for minor crimes can only exist if the defense cooperates and acquiesces in advising guilty pleas, early and often.  She zeroes in specifically on the quick and dirty guilty plea; the practice know derisively, but accurately, as “meet ‘em, greet ‘em and plead ‘em.”  She contends that if defense attorneys paid greater attention to these cases, they would in turn be less likely to advise the accused to plead guilty at the arraignment or initial appearance, and more people would opt to eschew a guilty plea and opt for a trial.  Besides better protecting the accused from potential negative consequences of a plea, the attorney would also finally and truly be providing effective assistance and living up to ethical standards. She offers specific suggestions for how public defender offices can actualize a heightened approach to misdemeanor practice.  She proposes focusing on public order offenses and/or developing specialized practice groups to develop expertise and effectively and fully litigate the myriad constitutional issues present, and heretofore usually overlooked, in charges like Disorderly Conduct.  Roberts advises offices to adopt policies that, for example, explicitly frown upon practices like “meet, greet, and plead,” and to collect and analyze data on police practices in these cases that have never before made it on to the radar screen. Roberts is not naïve.  She recognizes how hard it is for entrenched offices and practices to change, and that prosecutors or judges will likely react harshly if suddenly the defense bar stops playing nicely with others.  Nevertheless, she convincingly argues that pushing back against the misdemeanor practice status quo would overload, or “crash,” the system.  This in turn would force police officers and their superiors to think twice about arrests, prosecutors to think harder about cases they forward to court, judges to think more carefully and thoroughly about how they adjudicate, and legislators to ponder what acts should or should not be criminalized.  In the final analysis, crashing the current misdemeanor system will result in huge savings in financial and human terms. Read more