United States v. George
824 F. Supp. 2d 217
D. Mass.2011Background
- George pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud by defrauding the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the intangible right to his honest services; he served a 20-month sentence in 1996 with supervised release, community service, and fines.
- He was First Assistant Clerk-Magistrate in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and supplied blank search warrant forms later used in home invasions and robberies.
- Judge Lindsay sentenced George on January 29, 1996; George completed his sentence on April 23, 1999.
- George filed a writ of error coram nobis in 2004; the motion was denied in 2006 and affirmed by the First Circuit in 2007.
- George filed a second coram nobis petition on January 18, 2011, which is before the court in this decision.
- The court analyzes whether coram nobis relief is warranted under the All Writs Act, focusing on (i) fundamental error under Skilling, and (ii) continuing collateral consequences, notably pension loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skilling narrows the conduct criminalized under §1346 and thus creates a fundamental error to his conviction | George argues Skilling invalidates his conviction as outside the current statute scope | George contends his conviction rested on a now-uncriminal conduct | No; court denies relief on that basis. |
| Whether loss of pension constitutes a continuing collateral consequence justifying coram nobis relief | George claims pension suspension/termination is a continuing consequence | State pension loss is a past, sunk-cost consequence, not ongoing | Loss of pension does not warrant coram nobis relief. |
| Whether George can show continuing collateral consequences under First Circuit precedent despite Skilling | George relies on precedent recognizing collateral consequences | Collateral consequences here are not sufficiently significant | Rejected; coram nobis relief denied. |
| Whether the delay in seeking relief is excusable and the threefold test is satisfied | George argues excusable delay given Skilling decision | Delay under coram nobis weighs against relief | Delay not sufficient to grant relief; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1954) (All Writs Act authority; extraordinary remedy)
- Sawyer v. United States, 239 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (threefold inquiry for coram nobis; continuing consequences)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (Supreme Court 2010) (narrowed §1346 to core bribery/kickback conduct)
- Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008) (treats coram nobis under All Writs Act; patent error standard)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (Supreme Court 1996) (delineates circumstances warranting extraordinary relief)
- United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir. 1988) (discusses fundamental error in conviction)
- United States v. Craig, 907 F.2d 653 (7th Cir. 1990) (loss of pension deemed not a continuing collateral consequence)
- United States v. Foont, 901 F. Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (pierces continuing legal consequences as warranting relief)
- United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199 (7th Cir. 1988) (disbarment and other civil disabilities may justify relief)
- United States v. Mirza, 755 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Mass. 2010) (financial obligations alone not sufficient)