On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v Haymond. As we have mentioned several times the background of Haymond’s case, we won’t go into full detail. However, because of a previous sex offense, Haymond was violated under 18 USC 3583(k) which provides for a mandatory minimum five year violation because he had additional CP on his phone and possibly up to life.Continue reading “Supreme Court Claims Certain Violations May Be Unconstitutional”
Before I get into today’s post, I want to remind everybody that if your release date from the BOP is between now and July, we need as many people as possible to file a motion with the court in order to try and get our good time. A few people have already done this and are awaiting rulings. If you are somebody that meets this criteria (release between now and July), again, you can have someone download a sample motion that you can submit to the court in the jurisdiction in which you are presently being held and file it against the warden of your institution. You can download the motion in Microsoft Word by going to this address:Continue reading “The Internet: To Help or Terrorize?”
Later this month, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in United States v Haymond, a case that tests the legality of increased mandatory minimums and maximums for sex offenders who are accused of committing another sex offense while on release. Haymond had the misfortune to get malware on his smartphone, which gave him all sorts of nasty little goodies, including child pornography. As the evidence was pretty conclusive that he did not deliberately download these files, the Government tried to convict him through the back door of revoking his supervised release.Continue reading “The Import of Haymond”
As we previously mentioned in Wednesday’s post, we were working on a sample motion to submit to the court to try and get your extra good time. Again, this is mainly for people whose scheduled release date is between now and January. Simply fill in the blanks and put the name of your warden as the respondent. If you don’t know your warden’s name, just put Warden, Institution Name.
Anyway, your family can download and print off a copy of a sample form motion and mail it to you. They can download it at:Continue reading “A Look at Release Itself”
One of the main factors of supervised release-that it was not supposed to be punishment at all, but was meant to help the individual reintegrate into society-has largely been forgotten. Yet, it is something that courts should be reminded of, and the petition should explain how any challenged condition impedes this goal. Pointing out the real world consequences of a condition are far more likely to sway any judge than a legal argument, and many judges have modified conditions on this basis alone.Continue reading “How to Petition to Modify Your Conditions of Supervised Release-Part 3”
In challenging conditions already imposed, you must essentially treat this as a reverse sentencing, showing the condition does not comply with the release statute. Courts have broad discretion to impose conditions that are related to one of the following:
(1) the characteristics and nature of the offense;
(2) preventing more crime;
(3) protecting the public; and
(4) providing you needed services or treatment.
Editor’s Note: Last Tuesday, October 2, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Gundy. There were only eight justices who took part in this argument as Justice Kavanaugh was sworn in a few days later. Below is a summary of the arguments. Continue reading “Is Gundy Really Going to Change the Registry?”
Editor’s Note. This is the last part of a three-part series looking at the various conditions of supervised release. Earlier it was pointed out that changes to the guidelines had made some effect on the conditions of supervised release. These changes were reviewed and from what the editor/author can tell, they were simply clarifying changes or wording changes, but nothing new. Continue reading “Conditions of Supervised Release (Part Three)”
Editor’s Note: This is the second of a three-part series dealing with various conditions of supervised release. Since the last post, the author has been made aware of some changes that have been made in recent years. The updated changes, which are mostly clarifications, will be posted with part three of this series. Continue reading “Conditions of Supervised Release (Part Two)”