<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dallas Criminal Lawyer - David Finn &#187; unconstitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog/topics/unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog</link>
	<description>The personal online journal of David Finn, Dallas criminal lawyer and former elected criminal trial judge.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:05:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Court: Government Action Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog/unconstitutional/court-government-action-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog/unconstitutional/court-government-action-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>judgefinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[drug supplier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[United States v. Dorsey2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20958 (11th Cir. 2007)
Holding: Governmentâ€™s reason for refusing to fileÂ§5K1.1 motion was unconstitutional.
After the defendant was arrested with drugs, heimmediately started cooperating with police by callinghis drug supplier and leaving a message with the returnphone number of a detective with police department. 
The detective heard from the supplier, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>United States v. Dorsey</strong><br />2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20958 (11th Cir. 2007)</p>
<p><strong>Holding: Governmentâ€™s reason for refusing to file<br />Â§5K1.1 motion was unconstitutional.</strong></p>
<p>After the defendant was arrested with drugs, he<br />immediately started cooperating with police by calling<br />his drug supplier and leaving a message with the return<br />phone number of a detective with police department. </p>
<p>The detective heard from the supplier, arranged a purchase,<br />and arrested the supplier when he arrived with the<br />cocaine. Based on this cooperation, the government<br />stated that it would file a motion for reduced sentence<br />under Â§5K1.1. However, the defendant did not plead<br />guilty and took the matter to trial, where he was found<br />guilty of drug conspiracy and distribution charges.</p>
<p>Because the defendant went to trial, the government<br />refused to file the motion under Â§5K1.1. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />At sentencing, the defendant moved the district court to compel the<br />filing of the motion. The government responded that the<br />defendant â€œchose not to continue with his cooperation.<br />He chose to go to trial.â€? </p>
<p>The district court denied the<br />motion and the defendant appealed. </p>
<p>The Eleventh Circuit explained that although the district court could not grant<br />a downward departure under Â§5K1.1 without the<br />governmentâ€™s motion, it had the authority to review a<br />prosecutors refusal to file the motion and to grant a<br />remedy if it found the refusal was based on an<br />unconstitutional motive. </p>
<p><strong>â€œJudicial review is appropriate only when there is an allegation and a substantial<br />showing that the prosecution refused to file substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivitation.â€? In this case, refusing to file<br />a Â§5K1.1 motion in order to punish a defendant for exercising his right to trial was an unconstitutional motive.</strong></p>
<p><strong>â€œWhile the government may refuse to file a<br />Â§5K1.1 for many reasons, to punish a person because he<br />has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due<br />process violation of the most basic sort.â€? </strong></p>
<p>Refusing to file the motion in retribution for exercising the Sixth<br />Amendment right to jury by trial was an unconstitutional motive. </p>
<p><strong>The sentence was vacated and remanded</strong>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com"target="_">David Finn</a><br /></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dallascriminallawyer.com/blog/unconstitutional/court-government-action-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
