Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

04-2539 U.S. v. Krueger

By: dmc-admin//August 1, 2005//

04-2539 U.S. v. Krueger

By: dmc-admin//August 1, 2005//

Listen to this article

“We have, it is true, left open the possibility that the exclusionary rule might apply at sentencing where the authorities have deliberately violated the defendant’s constitutional rights for the purpose of acquiring evidence to boost his prospective sentence. Brimah, 214 F.3d at 858 n.4.; but see United States v. Jewel, 947 F.2d 224, 238 (7th Cir. 1991) (Easterbrook, J., concurring) (noting the near impossibility of showing that authorities obtained evidence specifically for use in sentencing, and going on to observe that ‘[i]t is awfully hard to see why motive should matter on either prudential or doctrinal grounds’). Krueger suggests that this might be what happened here: as he sees it, the aim of the August 8 interview was to gather evidence that the government could use to boost the drug quantity determination and thus his sentencing range. Krueger Reply Br. at 5. Prior to that interview, Krueger points out, he was known to be responsible for the three kilograms of marijuana that was found in his truck and in his residence; after the interview, the amount ‘ballooned’ to over 100 kilograms. Krueger Reply Br. at 6. ‘Clearly, the purpose and result of the interview was to increase Krueger’s sentence. What other purpose could it serve?’ Id.

“But the record lends little or no support to the notion that Handy and DeValkenaere deliberately violated Krueger’s right to an attorney with the intent to gather evidence that would increase his sentence. In fact, the testimony concerning the August 8 interview suggests that the agents were primarily interested in having Krueger name other persons who were involved in his drug dealing. Indeed, that proved to be a sticking point between the agents and Krueger: Krueger did not want to implicate anyone else (or at most, one other person), whereas the agents were unwilling to talk with him unless he was willing to name others. Krueger ultimately relented, and when he did, Deputy Sheriff Berlin was invited to join the discussion because he was more likely to know the individuals that Krueger would name. We do not suppose that the agents were blind to the sentencing ramifications of what Krueger told them about the extent of his marijuana sales. But the record as it stands does not suggest that they purposely trampled his constitutional rights in order to lengthen his prison sentence.”

Affirmed and Remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Rovner, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests