Insights < BACK TO ALL INSIGHTS
How Thick is the Blanket? – Preemptive Pardons as a Presidential Power
FEATURED
December 6, 2024
How Thick is the Blanket? – Preemptive Pardons as a Presidential Power
By: James Trusty
As the presiding judge scolded Hunter Biden’s attorneys this week, “The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”[1] But what exactly is that history he claims is being re-written? Judge Scarsi was challenging the largely academic issue of whether a pardon signed at noon, for instance, protects against crimes committed on the same day at dinnertime. That is a very limited run at the notion of “preemptive” pardons, and it seems to be strictly a question of chronology. The judge did not seem to question the idea of…
Supremely Improbable
July 30, 2024
Supremely Improbable
By: James Trusty
President Biden’s pronounced objectives for Supreme Court “reform” are improbable, politically lifeless under a particularly lame duck presidency, and motivated by transparently November-driven calculations. But even if the proposed changes are doomed from the start, they push public discourse on a couple of issues that are red meat for the democrats. The stated reforms are superficially simple ones: 1) to “clarify” that “there is no…
Presidential Immunity Ruling Stirs Sound and Fury
July 5, 2024
Presidential Immunity Ruling Stirs Sound and Fury
By: James Trusty
The immediate and eventual impact of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v. United States is both considerable and dramatically misrepresented. The initial consequences include likely delay to the January 6 prosecution out of D.C. and the setting of hearings—in D.C., Georgia and south Florida—where the judges will be required to make factual findings as to whether the evidence supporting the indictments reflect “official…
Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case
October 12, 2011
Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case
By: Ifrah Law
On September 30, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ordered the United States to pay $1.7 million in a malicious prosecution lawsuit to Hubert Vidrine, based on findings that the U.S. government had maliciously prosecuted Vidrine for alleged environmental crimes. This is a rare ruling by a federal court requiring the government to pay money damages for the overzealous actions…
District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case
October 10, 2011
District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case
By: Ifrah Law
A federal judge has made a major reversal in the case of Steve Warshak, the Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals founder who was sentenced to 25 years for defrauding customers who bought his “male enhancement” pills, which were advertised in the notorious “Smiling Bob” ad campaign. We have discussed Warshak’s case in a previous blog post. Warshak had been accused of defrauding customers out of $400 million,…
Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme
October 7, 2011
Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme
By: Ifrah Law
On Sept. 16, 2011, a federal judge in Miami sentenced Lawrence Duran to 50 years in prison, the longest sentence ever imposed in a Medicare fraud case, for his role in a massive fraud scheme that resulted in more than $205 million in losses. Duran was also ordered to pay $87 million in restitution. Duran was co-owner of American Therapeutic Corporation with Marianella Valera, his…
Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines
September 27, 2011
Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines
By: Ifrah Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently considered what type of proof is required for a sentence enhancement based on “intended loss” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that a loss enhancement applies only to losses the defendant purposely sought to inflict, not losses the defendant merely knew would occur or possible losses the defendant may have contemplated. To most…
No Attorney’s Fee Award for This Type of Prosecutorial Misconduct
September 22, 2011
No Attorney’s Fee Award for This Type of Prosecutorial Misconduct
By: Ifrah Law
The case of United States v. Shaygan recently made the news when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a district court’s award of $600,000 in attorney’s fees to a defendant who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct. The misconduct was indeed egregious — including recording conversations between a lawyer and a defense investigator, violating discovery orders, and vexatiously filing a superseding…
