Digital Forensics in Child Exploitation Cases

STREAM TRAINING ON FD.ORG

Florida Bar Reference #1908808N
Approval Period: 11/01/2020 - 05/31/2022

Digital evidence almost always plays a critical role in child exploitation cases. Larry Daniel, a private forensic consultant, explains how law enforcement agencies perform online investigations for child pornography and child solicitation cases. He covers the underlying technology with particular emphasis on peer-to-peer file sharing. He uses examples to illustrate the complexity and will show you how to challenge the digital evidence by working through actual case examples.

Larry has over 30 years’ experience in software development and data recovery. He began preforming digital forensics in 2001 and has thousands of hours of experience. He has qualified and testified as a computer and a cellular technology expert over 50 times in state and federal courts.

Trials in a Pandemic

STREAM TRAINING ON FD.ORG

Florida Bar Reference #2006309N
Approval Period: 09/01/2020 - 03/31/2022

We’ve already had several trials here in North Florida in recent weeks. The general approach seems that of requiring jurors and the parties to wear masks and attempting physical distancing. In this month’s video, several assistant federal public defenders from Dallas discuss their experience and the issues in what seems to have been the first federal trial during the pandemic. The topics include the logistics of it all, safety measures, jury selection, the presentation of evidence, communication with the client, and an effort to raise a claim that, in jury selection, they could not get a fair cross section of the community.

The presenters, Michael Kawi, Stephanie Inman, and Joel Page all work in the office of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Texas. Joel supervises the appellate section of the office.

The webinar was presented in June by the Training Division of the Office of Defender Services.

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #2003969N
Approval Period: 07/23/2020 - 01/31/2022

For decades now, legal writing instructors have been encouraging lawyers to write in plain concise language. The goal remains elusive.

In July and August, we’ll work toward getting closer to it. We’ll be presenting two Zoom sessions with Wayne Schiess, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Texas Law School’s David J. Beck Center for Legal Research, and Appellate Advocacy. In the session, he will cover everything from the best fonts to use, whether you need an extra space after a sentence, the en dash, when to use “which” instead of “that,” ending sentences with prepositions, and the best way to organize a pleading.

As we get closer, we’ll provide instructions on how to participate.

Mr. Schiess teaches legal writing, legal drafting, and plain English and speaks frequently on those subjects. He writes a monthly column on legal writing for the Austin Lawyer Magazine and has written five books on practical legal-writing skills, including Legal Writing Nerd: Be One and Plain Legal Writing: Do It. He graduated from Cornell Law School, practiced at the mega-firm of Baker Botts and joined the Texas Law Faculty in 1992. His blog, LEGIBLE, has been named to the Texas Bar Today weekly top ten blog posts 48 times.

Power Point presentation available upon request. Please email richard_bellew@fd.org.

Managing and Reviewing Electronic Discovery for CJA Panel Attorneys

STREAM TRAINING ON FD.ORG

Florida Bar Reference #2004228N
Approval Period: 05/01/2020 - 11/30/2021

This webinar addresses common problems CJA Panel Attorneys face with managing and reviewing electronic discovery and the strategies Panel Attorneys are using to solve them. Besides discussing litigation support technology, this session will describe the resources available to Panel Attorneys to help alleviate the daunting feeling when told that gigabytes of information will soon arrive. Whether the challenge involves volume, format or the need to collaborate with others, the information in this webinar will help you determine strategies and solutions for these demanding cases.

The National Litigation Support Team of the Office of Defender Services produces the webinar. It consists of Sean Broderick, Kelly Scribner, Alex Roberts, and Kalei Achiu, all with extensive experience in litigation support.

This is a recording of the live webinar presented at the end of April by the Defender Training Division of the Defender Services Office.

Litigation Ethics Issues

Florida Bar Reference #2000318N
Approval Period: 01/22/2020 - 07/31/2021

Federal Judicial Center host Brenda Baldwin-White talks with litigator Tom Spahn about several litigation ethics topics, including the frequently changing, often state-specific and sometimes counter-intuitive ethics rules governing lawyers’ communications about their cases and about judges; discovery through arguably deceptive means, paying and preparing fact witnesses, ghostwriting pleadings, and lawyers’ duties to disclose unfavorable facts and law to tribunals.

Thomas Spahn is a commercial litigator with the law firm of McGuire Woods. He has spoken at over 1,800 CLE programs throughout the United States and in several foreign countries. He has served on the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. As Chairman of the Virginia Bar Association on Professionalism, he acted as principal drafter of Principles of Professionalism that have been endorsed by the Virginia Supreme Court and commended by both of Virginia’s federal district courts. In 2013, the Virginia Law Foundation published the latest version of his book on the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine – a two-volume 1,500 page book discussing those topics on a national level.

Materials:

• 1.1 MB
  Litigation Ethics_ Key Issues1.pdf
• 1.1 MB
  Litigation Ethics_ Key Issues2.pdf

Mens Rea for Drug Type and Quantity Elements: Instructions for Conspiracy Limits on “Jointly Undertaken” Relevant Conduct

Please call 850-432-1418 to request this video.

Florida Bar Reference #1908808N
Approval Period: 11/20/2019 - 05/31/2020

In this month’s video, Sentencing Resource Counsel Amy Baron-Evans offers theories you can use to challenge two long-standing rules that affect drug prosecutions. While the Government is required to prove actual threshold drug quantities, it need only prove the defendant knew he had a controlled substance. Courts have held the Government has no obligation to prove the defendant knew either the type or the quantity of the controlled substance. In conspiracy cases, the Government, in proving the drug quantity, need only prove the actions of the co-conspirators was “reasonably foreseeable.”

Ms. Baron-Evans cites the new emphasis on mens rea in cases such as Rehaif v. United States, 193 S. Ct. 914 (2019), and explains why the Government should be required to prove the defendant knew the kind of drug and the quantity. In conspiracy cases, she argues that, rather than the defendant being held accountable for the activity of the co-conspirators that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant’s liability should be limited to the quantity within the scope of his activity.

Since 2005 Amy Baron-Evans has been the Sentencing Resource Counsel for the Federal Public Defender’s National Sentencing Resource Counsel Project. She is a 1991 graduate of the Harvard Law School.

New Developments in the Law of Incarceration

Please call 850-432-1418 to request this video.

Florida Bar Reference #1907055N
Approval Period: 09/25/2019 - 03/31/2021

This month we’ll be showing a video from the Federal Judicial Network. Host Brenda-Baldwin White talks with Professor David Shapiro, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, about the latest developments in the law of prisoners’ rights. They will discuss the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v. Blake and its requirement of administrative exhaustion. Other topics include solitary confinement, questions regarding the validity of certain prisoner forms after the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Beck, developments in constitutional standards for the treatment of jail detainees, and growing concerns about the doctrine of qualified immunity.

It’s a topic that is admittedly not directly related to CJA representation. Still, the presentation will give you a better understanding of the remedies available to prisoners and help you counsel clients about their rights.

David Shapiro is the Director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Program of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, a group of five appellate attorneys in Chicago and Washington, D.C. dedicated to strategic representation in high-stakes civil rights appeals throughout the nation. Prior to joining the faculty at Northwestern, Shapiro was a staff attorney at the ACLU National Prison Project. He’s a graduate of the Yale Law School.

Materials:

• 390 KB
  09-2019_Handout.pdf

Past Crimes and Prejudice: Strategies for Successful 404(b)/403 Arguments

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1808285N
Approval Period: 11/14/2018 - 05/14/2020

The Eleventh Circuit as well as many other Circuits have traditionally been generous in admitting the government’s collateral crime evidence on the basis of Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Those familiar with the Williams rule standard in Florida know just how generous it is. Some Circuits, though, have taken a fresh look at the rule and have adopted a more restrictive approach, one that recognizes that propensity – a consideration prohibited by the 404(b) - underlies much of what passes for justification. The United States Courts Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules is also in the process of reviewing 404(b).

In this month’s presentation, Assistant Federal Public Defender Edie Cunnigham reviews the current status of the law and offers suggestions about challenging it.

Ms. Cunningham is a lawyer with the Federal Public Defender Office in Tucson, Arizona. She is a 1993 graduate of the Yale Law School.

Materials:

• 3.3 MB
  Powerpoint_actual.pptx
• 540 KB
  Columbia_Law_Review_Article.pdf
• 213 KB
  11_Outline.pdf

Making the Most of the Panel Attorney's Toolkit

STREAM TRAINING ON FD.ORG

Florida Bar Reference #1806673N
Approval Period: 09/25/2018 - 03/25/2020

Advocating for the resources needed to successfully represent the client is an essential part of CJA practice. The CJA Guidelines specify how panel attorneys obtain funding for experts and other service providers to assist counsel. This recorded webinar will help you make sense of it all. The speaker, Sharon Samek, presents ideas and tips on how to obtain technical and litigation support funding and the best ways to use those funds. She also explores potential roles of investigators, paralegals, mitigation specialists and other service providers, as well as resources available through www.fd.org and the Defender Services Office Training Division.

Sharon Samek is an Attorney Advisor with the Legal and Policy Division of the Defender Services Office. She has been in private practice and was a member of the CJA Panel for the Middle District of Florida for more than 20 years. She has represented hundreds of CJA clients in district and appellate courts and argued before the United States Supreme Court. She regularly consults with panel attorneys, defender offices, and court staff about CJA resource issues and serves as faculty for the Defender Services Office training division conferences. She is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Investigating, Preparing, and Executing Your Cross Examination of Cooperators

In Federal Court, many an individual who goes to trial bears the brunt of a cooperating witness who testifies for the government. In this month’s video, two assistant federal public defenders, Kasha Castillo and Shereen Charlick, present strategies for cross examination, review the government’s discovery obligations, suggest areas of investigation including social media, and discuss the use of subpoenas duces tecum.

Kasha Castillo is a 1999 graduate of the University of San Diego Law School and a supervising attorney in the Federal Defender Office in San Diego. Shereen Charlick is a 1989 graduate of the University of California Berkeley Law School and is the Chief Trial Attorney for the Federal Defender Office in San Diego.

We filmed the presentation this past May at the National Seminar for Federal Defenders that was held in Kansas City, Missouri.

Materials:

• 24 MB
  Crossing_Snitches_2.pptx

Guns and Guidelines

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1804002N
Approval Period: 05/22/2018 - 11/22/2019

In this month’s video, Assistant Federal Public Defender Lisa Call discusses the intricacies of federal firearm offenses and punishments. The firearm guidelines are often difficult to navigate and can easily result in a sentence near the statutory maximum. This presentation will focus on deconstructing those guidelines to get your client the best sentence possible.

Lisa Call is a 1991 graduate of the University of Florida. She is the branch chief of the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Jacksonville, having worked there for nearly 20 years. She successfully argued in the United States Supreme Court the case that struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

Materials:

• 50 KB
  May Handout 1.pdf
• 146 KB
  May Handout 2.pdf
• 20 MB
  May Handout 3.pdf

Anatomy of an Appellate Brief

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1802162N
Approval Period: 03/20/2018 - 09/20/2019

A compelling brief can make all the difference. Each part of it should serve its individual purpose, while interacting with the other parts to make the case. It should be free of distractions that undermine its effectiveness. Assistant Federal Public Defender Dan Kaplan offers his suggestions for producing the best possible brief.

Dan was a law clerk to Judge Patricia Wald of the D.C. Circuit, worked in the civil division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and was as associate in a Phoenix law firm before joining the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Arizona in 2007. He is a 1996 graduate of the Harvard Law School.

Materials:

• 1.2 MB
  Kaplan_Dan-Anatomy_of_an_Appellate_Brief.pptx

New Strategies for Pretrial Release, Sentencing, and Supervised Release Conditions in Sex Offense Cases

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1709286N
Approval Period: 01/23/2018 - 07/23/2019

In this month’s video, Assistant Federal Public Defender Shereen Charlick focuses on strategies for obtaining reasonable pretrial and supervised release conditions for clients before the court on sex offenses. She discusses, too, strategies for securing the best possible sentences.

Shereen Charlick has been the Chief Trial Attorney for the Federal Public Defender’s Office in San Diego since 2005. She had since the early 1990's been an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Southern District of Florida and is a 1989 graduate of the University of Berkeley School of Law.

Materials:

• 25.8 MB
  Handout - Sentencing and Mitigation in CP cases.pptx

Plain Error from Top to Bottom

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1508599N
Approval Period: 09/15/2016 - 03/15/2018

“Plain error,” as all good federal practitioner’s know, is what you are left to argue on appeal when there is no objection in the trial court. This month’s presentation by Assistant Federal Public Defenders Tim Crooks and Judy Madewell, covers all aspects of dealing with unpreserved error on appeal. In addition to strategies for arguing against plain-error review, Tim and Judy provide tips for litigating all four prongs of plain-error review, with special emphasis on the third and fourth prongs - “effect on substantial rights” and “serious effect on fairness integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

The presentation is intended for those handling appeals, but will give those who only handle trials invaluable insight into the challenge presented in the absence of an objection.

Tim and Judy appeared in the video we presented in August on statutory construction. As they did in that one, they have made an entertaining presentation out of what could be a deadly boring topic.

Tim Crooks is a 1986 graduate of the Tulane Law School. He is currently the Chief of the Appellate Section in Houston for the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Texas. Earlier this year, he argued and won the case of Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016), an important Sentencing Guidelines case. Judy Madewell is a 1994 graduate of the University of Texas. She’s an Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Antonio, Texas. She has been an adjunct professor at the St. Mary’s School of Law in San Antonio since 2005.

Materials:

• 102 KB
  Plain Error from Top to Bottom - Pittsburgh 2016.pdf

Character Evidence and Impeachment

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1606930N
Approval Period: 09/20/2016 - 03/20/2018

This month’s video, from the Federal Judicial Center, features Professor David Sonenshein of the Temple University School of Law. He discusses Rule 404 (Character Evidence). His discussion includes reasons for impeachment, including prior convictions, prior acts of dishonesty, and prior inconsistent statements; character witnesses; and impeaching the hearsay declarant. He also covers rehabilitation of witnesses on redirect examination.

Professor Sonenshein is co-author with the late Irving Younger and Professor Michael Goldsmith of the case book Principles of Evidence. He teaches Evidence to Federal Judges at the Federal Judicial Center and to some of the premier law firms in the country.

Materials:

• 126 KB
  16-09 Handout 1.pdf
• 3.96 MB
  16-09 Handout 2.pdf

Taking the Best Advantage of the Sentencing Guidelines’ New Definition of “Crime of Violence”

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1605420N
Approval Period: 07/20/2016 - 01/20/2018

Next month, on August 1st, the United States Sentencing Guidelines breaks out its new definition of “crime of violence.” Burglary is gone. There is no longer a residual clause. The Commentary has lost its list of offenses and added a new definition of “forcible sex offense.” The changes mean that many who in years past have been sentenced as career offenders will no longer be. Many sentenced for firearm and immigration offenses will be eligible for shorter sentences.

In this month’s video Amy Baron-Evans and Jennifer Coffin, both of the Sentencing Resource Counsel project, talk about the issues that the amendments raise and how you can take advantage of and develop them. Amy is a 1991 graduate of Harvard Law School, a former law clerk for the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been the National Sentencing Resource Counsel since 2005. Jennifer is a 2000 graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law, a former law clerk for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a staff attorney with the Sentencing Resource Counsel Project since 2006.

Materials:

• 197 KB
  16-07 Amendment.pdf
• 217 KB
  16-07 Baron-Evans-Coffin - Enumerated Offenses Effective August 1_May 2016.pdf
• 445 KB
  16-07 Baron-Evans-Coffin - Commentary Offenses Memo with Circuit Split. revised 3.18.16.pdf
• 48 KB
  16-07 Baron-Evans-Coffin - COV Practice Guide rev 5.2.16.pdf

Practical Tips for Your Client Facing Federal Incarceration - Part One

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1602851N
Approval Period: 05/18/2016 - 11/18/2017

Despite the best efforts of lawyers around the county, most of those charged in federal court with criminal offenses go to prison. This month we have Part two of a two part video series in which David Merchant, an Assistant Federal Public Defender from Montana, talks about what you can do before sentencing to maximize the client’s chances for a favorable placement and to reduce the percentage of time he or she serves.

David Merchant is a 1996 graduate of the College of Law at Michigan State University. Before joining the Federal Defender’s Office in Montana in 2005, he worked for the Bureau of Prisons, was in private practice in Lansing, Michigan, and was on the CJA Panel for the Western District of Michigan. Dave serves as the Montana Membership Chair for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and has lectured throughout the United States on Bureau of Prison issues.

Materials:

• 1.05 MB
  16-04-05 Powerpoint.pdf

Writing Motions - With Style

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1602852N
Approval Period: 04/20/2016 - 10/20/2017

Good lawyering depends on good communicating, and good communicating depends on good writing. The goal for this session is to give you several easy-to-implement tips that will immediately improve your writing, which will lead to better communicating, which will result in better lawyering.

Jay McEntire is a trial lawyer with the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Washington. He is a 2007 graduate of the Seattle University School of Law. Before joining Federal Defender Office, he was a law clerk for a United States District Court judge in the Eastern District of Washington and practiced with a firm in Spokane. He is an adjunct professor at the Gonzaga University School of Law.

Materials:

• 3.24 MB
  16-03 Powerpoint.pdf

Court-Ordered Electronic Surveillance

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Florida Bar Reference #1600136N
Approval Period: 01/21/2016 - 07/21/2017

One of the most complicated tasks you’ll face as a defense lawyer is that of reviewing the legality of court-ordered electronic surveillance. In this month’s video, Senior United States District Court Judge James G. Carr (N.D. Ohio) explains the process, including the “necessity” showing in the application, violation of the Franks doctrine, minimization, and delayed sealing of the recordings.

Judge Carr was a law school professor at the Toledo College of Law after graduating from Harvard Law School. He served as a United States Magistrate Judge from 1979 to 1994. The Senate confirmed him in 1994 as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, and he assumed senior status in 2010. He is the principal co-author of the treatise The Law of Electronic Surveillance (Thompson/West).

Materials:

• 33 KB
  16-01 Handout.pdf

Representing Veterans in Federal Case

In Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009), the Supreme Court recognized our nation’s long tradition of affording leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines. In this month’s video, two Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Jim Skuthan and Joseph Wilhelm, will discuss how to handle a case involving a veteran and how to use the resources available to investigate, develop, and present mitigation evidence. The session will also cover recurrent mental health issues defense counsel should be aware of when defending veterans, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

Jim Skuthan is the First Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Middle District of Florida. He regularly lectures on topics in federal criminal defense and has appeared in a number of our past video recordings. He is a 1985 graduate of the Florida State University School of Law. Joseph Wilhelm is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of Ohio. He is a 1991 graduate of the University of Cincinnati College of Law.

We recorded the presentation this past May at the national Seminar for Federal Defenders that was held in Cleveland, Ohio.

Materials:

• 997 KB
  September 2014 Handout.pdf

Use of the Smarter Sentencing Act, The Justice Safety Act, Holder Memos, and Other Recent Developments to Obtain Variances and Challenge the Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This month’s video features two lawyers from the National Sentencing Resource Counsel, Amy Baron-Evans and Jennifer Coffin. They discuss the recent bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress, directives from the Attorney General, reports from the Sentencing Commission, district court opinions, reports from well-respected policy research organizations, and other influential sources that they argue reflect a growing consensus that sentences recommended by the sentencing guidelines and required by mandatory minimum statutes serve no purpose of sentencing. They explain how to use these materials to obtain variances from the guideline range, and, for the bold, to prove that many of the mandatory minimums violate the Eight Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

Both Amy Baron-Evans and Jennifer Coffin are part of a group of lawyers that form the National Sentencing Resource Counsel that is funded by the Defender Services Office. They regularly lecture on sentencing issues and provide support to the Federal Public Defender system. Ms. Baron-Evans is a 1991 graduate of the Harvard Law School. Ms. Coffin is a 2000 graduate of the Tennessee College of Law.

Materials:

• 329 KB
  Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.pdf
• 245 KB
  Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013.pdf
• 366 KB
  Letter from United States Sentencing Commission to Senate Judiciary Committeed re Mandatory Minimums.pdf
• 122 KB
  Links to Research Reports.pdf
• 418 KB
  Maximum Penalties for Drug Offenses in States with Life Without Parole Sentences
• 704 KB
  Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder re Department Policy on Charging and Sentencing
• 1.4 MB
  Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder re Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases
• 1.3 MB
  Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder re Retroactive Application of Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases
• 598 KB
  Smart on Crime - - Reforming the Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
• 300 KB
  Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013
• 3.0 MB
  U.S. Department of Justice Letter re Proposed Amendments to Federal Sentencing Guidelines
• 165 KB
  United States v. Bartholomew, Order Granting Continuance
• 1.7 MB
  United States v. Douglas Young (N.D. Iowa, Aug. 16, 2013)
• 124 KB
  United States v. Jones, Order on Motion to Strike
• 802 KB
  United States v. Lulzim Kupa (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2013)
• 420 KB
  United States v. Ross, Order on 2255

New Developments in the Right to Confrontation

Since the revolutionary decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the right of confrontation has taken on a new meaning and has been subject to continued interpretation by the Supreme Court. In this month’s video presentation, Stanford University Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher, who won the victory in Crawford provides his analysis of the Court’s ongoing interpretation of one of the Constitution’s most basic rights.

Among those practicing law today, few have had the impact in the United States Supreme Court that Jeffrey Fisher has had. Since 2003, he has argued more than 20 cases before the Court. Among them: Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), where the Court concluded the testimony of a lab analyst who did not perform the blood alcohol testing violated the confrontation clause; United States v. O’Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010), where the Court held proof that the firearm was a machine gun was a necessary element of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii); Melendez-Diaz v. Masssachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2008), where the Court found the introduction of certificates signed by state lab analysts violated the Confrontation Clause; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), upholding the ban on capital punishment for child rape; Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), the case involving the punitive damage claim in the Exon Valdez oil spill; Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and, of course, Crawford v. Washington. His talent and insight into the Court make him a uniquely qualified to discuss the Confrontation Clause.

We filmed this presentation in June at the Federal Public Defender Conference in Atlanta. The presentation lasts 75 minutes.

Materials:

• 179 KB
  November 2012 Handout (Fisher).pdf

Sentencing Guidelines (Part Three) – Recent Case Law

This month we’ll be showing the third and final installment of our three-part series featuring the presentation made by the United States Sentencing Commission this past April in Pensacola. In it, Alan Dorhoffer covers what practitioners need most – up-to-date case law. He reviews Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit decisions regarding the Sentencing Guidelines issues of (1) what amounts to a "crime of violence" and "violent felony" as those terms are used in the Career Offender Guideline and the Armed Career Criminal Act, (2) appellate review for "reasonableness," (3) departures and variances, (4) child pornography, and (5) restitution in mortgage fraud cases.

Alan Dorhoffer is the Deputy Director of the Sentencing Commission’s Office of Education and Sentencing Practice. He has conducted hundreds of training programs for judges, attorneys, law clerks, and probation officers on federal sentencing issues. He is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law.

Materials:

• 777 KB
  Guidelines Handout 2012.pdf (same as July)

Sentencing Guidelines (Part One) – Overview The Sentencing Guideline Commission and Relevant Statistics

This month we begin a three-part series featuring the presentation made by the United States Sentencing Guideline Commission this past April in Pensacola. Part One, which you will see this month, features United States Sentencing Guideline Commissioner Dabney Friedrich and the Commission’s principal trainer, Rusty Burress.

Ms. Friedrich talks about the make-up of the Commission, describes the process used by the Commission to promulgate the Guidelines, and reviews the recent research conducted by the Sentencing Commission regarding mandatory minimum sentences and the ongoing research into the child pornography guideline and the impact of the Booker decision on sentencing. Mr. Burress gives you the comparison between the kinds of cases being prosecuted nation-wide and the kind of cases being prosecuted in North Florida. He examines, too, the rates at which sentences are imposed within and outside the Sentencing Guidelines.

Ms. Friedrich who is from Pensacola served as associate counsel at the White House from 2003 until her appointment to the Sentencing Commission in December of 2006. Prior to that she was counsel to Chairman Orrin Hatch of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, worked as an Assistant State Attorney, as an associate in a San Diego law firm, and as a clerk to a United States District Judge. She is a graduate fo the Yale Law School.

Rusty Burress is the Principal Training Advisor in the Sentencing Commission’s Office of Education and Sentencing Practice and has been on the staff of the Commission since its inception in 1985. He worked as a U.S. Probation Officer in South Carolina prior to joining the Sentencing Commission. He is a graduate of the University of South Carolina and earned a Master’s Degree from Fordham University.

Materials:

• 777 KB
  Guidelines Handout 2012.pdf

Preparing Your Client for the Bureau of Prisons

The truth of the matter is that nearly all of our clients end up serving a sentence in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In this month’s video presentation, John Badalamenti, an Assistant Federal Public Defender from the Middle District of Florida, will familiarize you with the structure of the Bureau of Prisons and will discuss such topics as the Program Statements that set out the rules applicable to the Bureau, the administrative process which prisoners must use to challenge the actions of the Bureau, the designation process, the Bureau’s reliance upon the presentence report, and admission into the Bureau’s popular residential drug treatment program.

John graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1999. Upon graduation, he entered the United States Attorney General’s Honors Program, where he spent a year as an Attorney-Advisor for the Bureau of Prisons in Atlanta. He has been in private practice with Carlton Fields, P.A., and has served as a law clerk to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Paul H. Roney and Frank M. Hull. He is currently an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Tampa.

We recorded Mr. Badalamenti this April at the Criminal Justice Act panel training presented by the Federal Public Defender for the Middle District of Florida.

Materials:

• 285 KB
  Badalamenti Slide Show.pdf

Searching Cell Phones

It has become something we see more and more often. The police arrest someone and then proceed to search the individual’s cell phone. Many, but not all courts, have upheld the search of cell phones if made incident to the arrest. The Florida Supreme Court, however, has pending before it the decision of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in Smallwood v. State, 61 So. 3d 448 (1stDCA 2011) and it is still an evolving area of the law.

Florida State University of Law Professor Wayne Logan reviewed the issue in a presentation he gave in January to the Tallahassee FACDL Chapter. Professor Logan is a past Chair of the Criminal Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools. He is a dynamic lecturer who has published on a wide variety of issues, including capital punishment, police search and seizure, sex offender registration and community notification, and the interplay among, state, federal and local criminal justice systems.

Defending Those Who Defend Us - Considerations in Defending Veterans

Particularly with the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we sometimes have clients who are veterans. This month’s video will help you identify key considerations in representing them, particularly those who suffer from service-connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. The speaker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christian Capece, will also provide tips on how to maximize the impact of a client’s honorable military service and offer assistance in understanding the client’s service record and its potential for securing a better sentence.

Christian Capece served as Judge Advocate in the United States Marines in Okinawa, Japan, and Quantico, Virginia from 2000-2004. He has also been a law clerk for a United States District Judge in New York, worked for a New York law firm, and has been an assistant federal public defender in Charleston, West Virginia, since 2007.

Materials:

• 3.61 MB
  January 2012 Handout.pdf
• 106 KB
  January 2012 Additional Handout Military_Service_5H1-11_Departures_Booker_Variances.pdf

Advanced Guideline Issues: Multiple Counts

For most of us, one of the most complicated Sentencing Guideline issues is that of dealing with multiple counts. The"grouping rules" exist for providing incremental punishment for significant additional criminal conduct, but also serve to limit the significance of charging decisions by the Government so as to prevent multiple punishment for essentially the same conduct. Any lawyer who hopes to accurately gauge the potential punishment his or her client is facing, needs to have a good understanding of the applicable sections, USSG §§3D1.1-3D1.4.

This month’s video is designed to give you that working knowledge. It features Rachel Pierce and Krista Rubin, both of whom are with the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Office of Education and Sentencing Practice. They develop training curriculum, conduct training programs for judges, probation officers, and lawyers on the federal sentencing guidelines. Ms. Pierce has been with the Sentencing Commission since 1998; Ms. Rubin since 1996. Their presentation was broadcast this past August on The Federal Judicial Televison Network.

Kealin Culbreath is a Senior Education and Sentencing Practice Specialist for the United States Sentencing Commission where he began working in 2002. He analyzes appellate court decisions and conducts training programs for judges, probation officers, and attorneys. Prior to joining the staff of the Sentencing Commission, Mr. Culbreath was a Staff Attorney for the Governor's Office in Atlanta. He is a 1999 graduate of the University of Georgia Law School.

Materials:

• 187 KB
  Nov 10 Handout.pdf

Educating Courts about Invisible Punishments - Collateral Consequences of Conviction and Imprisonment as Mitigating Factors

In this month’s video recorded presentation, Denise Barrett and Sara Silva explore the effects of imprisonment on defendants, families, and communities - such things as disqualification from public housing, residency requirements for sex-offenders, limited employment opportunities, loss of welfare or food stamps, and deportation. They discuss, too, using these factors to mitigate the length of the sentence or conditions of probation and supervised release.

Denise Barrett is a 1989 graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law. Sara Silva is graduate of the Boston University School of Law. Both work with the Office of Defender Services Sentencing Resource Counsel.

We recorded them this past June at the Federal Defender Conference in Seattle.

Materials:

• 187 KB
  Collateral Consequences Resource List.6.1.10.pdf

Computer and Internet Crimes

In the last decade, criminal activity involving the internet has become common place - child pornography offenses, unauthorized access into even the most secure networks, identity theft, and all kinds of fraud. In this month’s video presentation, Assistant Federal Public Defender Ken Hawk covers the terrain and shares his insights into defending these computer based crimes.

Ken is a 1989 graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law. He was a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer in Lubbock, Texas from 1989-2006. He has been an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of Texas since 2006.

We recorded Ken in June at National Seminar for Federal Defenders in Seattle. Ken’s humor and analysis made his one of the best presentations at the Seminar.

Materials:

• 240 KB
  July 2010 Handout.pdf

Federal Drug Sentencing

Drug cases account for the largest percentage of cases filed in many districts including the Northern District of Florida. This month Federal Public Defender Randy Murrell reviews the essentials of sentencing for federal drug offenses. In addition to reviewing the general sentencing scheme, he will discuss (a) the determination of the drug quantity for the purpose of establishing the mandatory minimums; (b) the notice requirement of 21 U.S.C. § 851; (c) the determination of separate acts for purposes of the §851 enhancement; (d) the safety valve; (e) substantial assistance; (f) relevant conduct; and (g) the status of proposed changes to the crack cocaine law. This is a live presentation so there will be an opportunity for discussion.

Randy Murrell has been the Federal Public Defender since 1998. Prior to his appointment, he spent 20 years as an assistant state public defender. Between the two jobs, he has tried over 300 felony cases including 19 first degree murder cases. He is Board Certified in criminal trials by The Florida Bar and is a 1976 graduate of the Florida State University School of Law.

Materials:

• 222 KB
  May 10 handout.pdf

Sentencing Guidelines - Firearms

Firearms figure prominently in many federal cases. Accordingly, most who practice federal criminal defense have some familiarity with the applicable sentencing guidelines. Still, there are many fine points that can make all the difference: the adjustments that apply if the gun is stolen or the serial number obliterated, the question of what amounts to trafficking in firearms, the definition of possessing a firearm "in connection" with another felony offense and the cross-referencing provision that can apply if the firearm is possessed "in connection with" another felony, the impact of a conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and the grouping rules as they apply to those cases that inclNew Developments in the Right to Confrontationude both firearm and drug offenses.

In this month's video presentation, Kealin Culbreath and Rusty Burress, members of the United States Sentencing Commission's staff, address these issues and work through a number of scenarios to help you better understand the firearm provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We recorded them last September in Pensacola.

Rusty Burress is the Principal Training Advisor for the United States Sentencing Commission. He has been on the Sentencing Commission's staff since its inception in 1985. He is the Commission's principal trainer of judges probations officers, and attorneys. Before joining the Sentencing Commission he was a United States Probation officer for the District of South Carolina. Mr. Burress holds degrees from the University of South Carolina and Fordham University.

Kealin Culbreath is a Senior Education and Sentencing Practice Specialist for the United States Sentencing Commission where he began working in 2002. He analyzes appellate court decisions and conducts training programs for judges, probation officers, and attorneys. Prior to joining the staff of the Sentencing Commission, Mr. Culbreath was a Staff Attorney for the Governor's Office in Atlanta. He is a 1999 graduate of the University of Georgia Law School.

Materials:

• 701 KB
  March 10 Handout.pdf

Sentencing Guidelines - Relevant Conduct

STREAM TRAINING ON VIMEO

Section 1B1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines describes "relevant conduct." It is a concept that includes in the guideline calculations conduct other than that involved in the offense of conviction. It can include conduct for which the defendant was never charged, conduct addressed in counts of the indictment that have been dismissed, and even conduct for which the defendant was acquitted. It is a concept that is both vexing and difficult to understand.

In this month's video presentation, Rusty Burress and Kealin Culbreath of the United States Sentencing Commission will provide you with a better understanding of this provision that, for some defendants, can produce especially harsh results. The presentation includes the application of relevant conduct to scenarios involving a drug conspiracy, a social security offense, a firearms offense, and a child pornography offense. We recorded it on September 26th of last year in Pensacola.

Rusty Burress is the Principal Training Advisor for the United States Sentencing Commission. He has been on the Sentencing Commission's staff since its inception in 1985. He is the Commission's principal trainer of judges probations officers, and attorneys. Before joining the Sentencing Commission he was a United States Probation officer for the District of South Carolina. Mr. Burress holds degrees from the University of South Carolina and Fordham University.

Kealin Culbreath is a Senior Education and Sentencing Practice Specialist for the United States Sentencing Commission where he began working in 2002. He analyzes appellate court decisions and conducts training programs for judges, probation officers, and attorneys. Prior to joining the staff of the Sentencing Commission, Mr. Culbreath was a Staff Attorney for the Governor's Office in Atlanta. He is a 1999 graduate of the University of Georgia Law School.

Materials:

• 494 KB
  January 10 Handout.pdf

How to Effectively Use an Interpreter in Defending a Criminal Case

With an ever increasing number of foreign nationals being prosecuted in federal court, we are having to rely more and more on interpreters. Accordingly, lawyers need to recognize the obstacles faced by interpreters and how to use them effectively. In this month’s video, Jeanette Alvarado, an assistant federal public defender from Arizona, and Catherine Betancourt, who works as a staff interpreter for the Federal Public Defender in Arizona, discuss some common misconceptions about using interpreters and offer suggestions about the best way to communicate with clients through an interpreter. Along the way they discuss some of the cultural differences that can complicate communication.

Jeanette Alvarado is a 1994 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. She has been an assistant federal public defender since 1998. Catherine Betancourt earned a masters degree from the University of Charleston in 2000. She has been a staff interpreter for the Federal Public Defender since 2006.

We filmed the presentation in May of this year at the Federal Defender Conference in New Orleans.

Materials:

• 203 KB
  Nov 08 outline.pdf
• 503 KB
  Nov 08 article.pdf
• 395 KB
  Nov 08 Slideshow.ppt

Bureau of Prisons Overview

Today there are 110 prisons and detention centers run by the Bureau of Prisons. There are nearly 200,000 prisoners. The Bureau’s Program Statements regulate much of what goes on within the prisons. Prisoners who wish to challenge their treatment must follow a particular administrative procedure. In the last few years, the designation process has been moved out of the regional offices and centralized in Grand Prairie, Texas. As early as the sentencing, what the sentencing judge does or does not do, can greatly impact the conditions of imprisonment.

In this months video, John Badalamenti, a Assistant Federal Public Defender from the Middle District of Florida, who spent a year as an Attorney-Advisor with the Bureau of Prisons, provides a tour through the methods and regulations of the Bureau. His presentation includes practical advice about what you can do and who to call to help your client navigate the hazards of a prison sentence.

We filmed John’s presentation at the panel training presented this past May in Orlando by the Federal Public Defender for the Middle District of Florida.

John graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1999. Upon graduation he entered the United States Attorney General’s Honors Program, where he spent a year as an Attorney-Advisor for the Bureau of Prisons in Atlanta. He has been in private practice with Carlton Fields, P.A., and has served as a law clerk to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Paul H. Roney and Frank M. Hull.

Materials:

• 1.2 MB
  Sept 08 handout.ppt

Sentencing After Booker, Kimbrough, and Gall

This past January, we showed you a presentation by Assistant Federal Public Defender Tracy Dreispul that reviewed the developments in sentencing that ensued following the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Not long after Tracy made that presentation, the Supreme Court continued the sentencing revolution in its decisions in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), and Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). In this month’s video presentation, Tracy reviews those cases and discusses how they affect the day-to-day sentencing decisions faced by district court judges.

Susan Herman has been a professor at the Brooklyn Law School since 1980. She’s appeared before the United States Supreme Court on a number of occasions and is often sought out by one media source or another for her insights into criminal law. Edwin Chemerinsky has been a professor at the Duke University School of Law, and will soon be the founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at UC-Irvine. He appears regularly before the United States Supreme Court and is a frequent commentator for the media. Paul Rashkind heads the appellate section of the Federal Public Defender’s office for the Southern District of Florida. He is a 1975 graduate of the University of Miami.

Materials:

• 2.8 MB
  Booker08.pdf

Identity Theft

Identity theft has become the crime du jour. The federal government has responded by insuring that those convicted of the offense will serve significant prison sentences. As of 2004 there has been a mandatory minimum two year sentence that runs consecutively to the related offense.

In this month’s training video, Martin Richer, an assistant federal public defender from Boston, reviews the statute and the applicable sentencing guidelines. He includes a discussion of some of the loss calculations that drive the sentencing guideline score.

Martin is a 1991 graduate of the Northeastern University School of Law. He is a former law clerk and has been an assistant federal public defender since 1997. We recorded him last year in Miami at the National Seminar for Federal Defenders.

Materials:

• 222 KB
  May 08 Handout.pdf