April 19, 2006
Interesting Third Circuit case on supervised release conditions
In a case that seems to be fertile ground for lawyer jokes, the Third Circuit issued an interesting ruling about conditions of supervised release today in US v. Smith, No. 05-2697 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2006) (available here). In Smith, the defendant fails in his effort to reverse an "occupational restriction imposed on Smith after sentencing which barred him from employment with an attorney or law firm for the three-year duration of his supervised release."
As the facts detail, Smith's crime of conviction was wire fraud after he "started a business named Litigation Support Services" and orchestrated a number of fraudulent business deals. Despite this history, upon his "release from the federal correctional institution and transfer to the community corrections center, local attorneys who knew Smith offered to hire him during his period of supervised release." But Smith's "program review team" objected, and litigation ensued.
The Third Circuit upholds Smith's occupational restriction, though a lawyer joke punchline might be that the court forced the defendant to work with attorneys (and the follow-up line, of course, would be something about cruel and unusual punishment).
April 19, 2006 at 01:55 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interesting Third Circuit case on supervised release conditions: