« Will Donald Trump make a statement on his behalf at his upcoming sentencing? | Main | "Congress Must Abolish Acquitted Conduct Sentencing" »
May 31, 2024
Part 1 of "Drugs on the Docket" podcasts on fake stash-house stings now available
In this post earlier this week, I previewed that the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University was about to start releasing episodes from Season Two of the "Drugs on the Docket" podcast. Excitingly, as detailed on this podcast webpage, today brought the release of the first episode of this new season. (And all of the first season's episodes are all still available via Apple Podcasts and YouTube.) This first episode to kick-off Seanson 2 is actually part of a extended discussion that was so chock full of content that it became a two-part series described this way at the podcast webpage:
Season 2 Episode 1 – Stash house stings with Alison Siegler and Erica Zunkel (Part 1 of 2)
Host Hannah Miller and co-host Douglas Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, kick off Season 2 with guests Alison Siegler and Erica Zunkel from the University of Chicago. Part 1 of this two-part episode focuses on clients ensnared in undercover stash house sting operations carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and how the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School sought to prove that the ATF violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of race when selecting its targets.
Alison Siegler is Clinical Professor of Law and Founding Director of the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School; Erica Zunkel is Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and teaches in the school’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic.
The many remarkable legal and policy stories that surround the fake stash-house stings continue to amaze me, and I am extremely grateful to have been part of this effort to tell parts of the story via these podcasts. I encourage everyone to have a listen.
May 31, 2024 at 02:34 PM | Permalink
Comments
I just finished watching this episode. The discussion about clients caught in undercover stash-house sting operations and the legal implications surrounding them was both fascinating and concerning.
Posted by: Wordle Unlimited | Jun 1, 2024 12:41:45 AM
Thanks! I entirely agree!
Posted by: Doug B | Jun 1, 2024 7:54:30 AM
To me, many of the issues about fake stash house stings come down to a form of sentencing entrapment, hollow drug conspiracy charges, where there are no actual drugs, but defendants are sentenced based upon large quantities that were merely discussed. I have seen many kinds of sentencing entrapment over the years. One of the most pernicious was a cooperating federal informant who was instructed by his DEA handlers to ask his drug supplier to get him a 9 mm pistol, explaining that he couldn't get one himself, because he is a felon. Our client worked for the drug supplier, but was not in the vehicle when that conversation occurred. The next time the drug dealer brought our client to a meeting with that informant, he pulled out a 9 mm pistol and asked his passenger to give the gun to him. Our client merely passed the gun out the window of the car to the informant. At sentencing, the Government sought enhancements against our client for supplying a pistol to a felon and possession of a firearm by a felon (for passing the gun out the window). In our Response Sentencing Memo, wee pointed out to the Judge that our client was unaware that the informant was a felon, because he had not been in the car when the informant told his bosss drug dealer that he was a felon. We also avoided the enhancement for possessing a firearm as a felon using the Doctrine of Transient Possession -- that out client never exercised dominion and control over the weapon, but merely passed it out the window to the informant as his boss (the driver) asked him to do. While this Doctrine had not then been adopted in the 6th Circuit, it is the law in 5 other Circuits, from which I cited cases. At the sentencing hearing, we prevailed on these issues. We gave the Judge factual and legal hooks to hang his hat on and explained how the sentencing entrapment had been set up by the informant's DEA handlers (which the prosecution admitted). Like many Judges, our sentencing judge does not like the concept of sentencing entrapment, where the Government tries to run up sentences by enticing criminals to commit new and additional crimes. Our client's boss, who got the gun as requested, knowing that the informant was a felon, did receive the sentencing enhancements, because he knew what he had been told by the informant when our client wasn't present. Our wins were important ot our client, who was facing a possible maximum sentence of 30 years because he had a prior felony drug conviction. In the end, we did better than we had hoped. We estimated that our client's sentence would be 12 to 14 years. He walked out of the Courtroom with a 9-year sentence and a recommendation for the BOP residential drug program, which could take up to a year off his sentence, upon completion. Congress should limit or eliminate sentencing entrapment.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jun 1, 2024 10:11:18 AM
Jim Gormley,
In case anyone wonders why federalist calls you a disgrace, that would be why LOL
MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 2, 2024 2:43:37 AM
Clever and sneaky way to avoid stash house stings: Avoid stash houses.
Gosh, that was tough.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 4, 2024 6:49:26 PM
These are not real stash houses, Bill.
Posted by: Doug B | Jun 4, 2024 7:05:28 PM
