|
|
|
| Allocution |
|
United States v. O'Hallaren,
No. 07-1559 (7th Cir., October 2, 2007): Allocution: After serving time for a federal offense, O'Hallaren was released from BOP custody to serve 36-months of supervised release. O'Hallaren turned out to not be probation material, testing positive for cocaine use and otherwise leaving his probation prospects in a shambles. At the revocation hearing, O'Hallaren admitted all five violations, but the court revoked without allowing O'Hallaren or counsel to address the court. This violated his right of allocution under Rule 32.1 and prejudice was presumed. Remanded for re-sentencing (finding plain error). COMPARE this case to United States v. Pitre, No. 06-3935 (7th Cir., October 3, 2007), which involved strikingly similar facts, but no remand on plain error review.
|
|
|
United States v. Carruth,
No. 07-12060 (11th Cir., May 22, 2008): Allocution: Sentence imposed as a result of revocation of supervised release is vacated where the District Court did not grant Carruth his right of allocution (to address the Court personally prior to sentencing). Remanded for the re-sentencing in which he must be "given the opportunity to allocute."
|
|
United States v. Jarvi,
No. 07-3200 (10th Cir., August 21, 2008) (Published): 1. Allocution; 2. Searches and Seizures; Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Jarvi plead guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute 5 Grams of Meth. His motion to suppress is denied on the basis that, although an initial traffic stop that yielded drugs was unconstitutional, he failed to present sufficient evidence of a nexus between this invalid stop and the subsequent search of his home pursuant to a search warrant. HOWEVER, the panel held that Jarvi was denied his right of allocution before sentencing per Rule 32 when the District Court refused to listen to his pro se arguments concerning sentencing.
|
|
|
|
