Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Inmate Trust Fund Policy – Unauthorized Financial Transactions – Reduction of Good Time Credit

By: Derek Hawkins//August 24, 2020//

Inmate Trust Fund Policy – Unauthorized Financial Transactions – Reduction of Good Time Credit

By: Derek Hawkins//August 24, 2020//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: James Crawford v. Frank Littlejohn, Deputy Warden, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility

Case No.: 19-1949

Officials: EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Inmate Trust Fund Policy – Unauthorized Financial Transactions  – Reduction of Good Time Credit

A prison disciplinary board in Indiana concluded that James Crawford had participated in an “unauthorized financial transaction” by telling Scott Wolf, a fellow inmate, to send $400 to his mother, Becky Crawford. Wolf sent the check, which Becky Crawford cashed. Wolf told prison officials that the payment covered the cost of drugs that Crawford had supplied.

The prison’s Code B-220 bans possessing materials for, or engaging in, “unauthorized financial transactions”. (Language in Code B-220 has changed recently; we quote the rule in force at the time of the events.) Section IX of the Inmate Trust Fund Policy supplies this definition of unauthorized financial transactions: “attempting or completing financial transactions, including the sending of monies from one offender to another or the sending of monies from the family/friends of one offender to another.” The prison penalized Crawford by the loss of 30 days’ good-time credit. In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2241 a district judge held that the penalty is not supported by evidence and directed Indiana to restore the 30-day credit.

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), holds that a prison may discipline an inmate by reducing good-time credit unless the record is “devoid of evidence” (id. at 457). Elsewhere the Court stated the rule as a requirement that “some evidence in the record” (id. at 454) support the penalty. Indiana contends that “some evidence” supports the decision—that, indeed, Wolf’s remittance to Crawford’s mother is undisputed. Only the reason for the payment was contested (Crawford asserts that it was for a car that Wolf’s aunt and Wolf’s daughter were buying), but the reason for the payment is not part of the offense defined by Code B-220.

Crawford contends that the reason must matter; otherwise why did the prison punish him rather than Wolf? That’s a good question, but if we agree with Crawford that the reason matters, some evidence remains: Wolf said during a formal interview that he was paying Crawford for drugs by routing money to Crawford’s mother, and the disciplinary board found that this is true. Wolf did not testify before the board, so his statements are hearsay, but hearsay is “some evidence”. Hearsay is used in federal sentencing all the time. This is the sort of hearsay—a statement against penal interest—that could have been admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) in proceedings to which the Rules of Evidence apply.

For what it may be worth, we doubt that the state officials have misunderstood the prison’s rules. The definition covers “attempting or completing financial transactions, including” three examples (emphasis added). The examples illustrate some applications. The judge did not explain why he read this definition to cover only the examples, as opposed to the full spectrum of “financial transactions” that the prison has not authorized.

Crawford says that the structure of this definition—a broad term (“financial transactions”) followed by three non-exclusive examples—makes it unconstitutionally vague. We do not agree. The phrase “financial transactions” is broad, but broad differs from inscrutable. The rule is sweeping, not vague. People of common understanding can see what is forbidden.

Reversed

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

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