United States v. George
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7758
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Richard George served as a first assistant clerk-magistrate in Massachusetts from 1975 to 1995 and issued search warrants
- In 1995 he was charged by information (not indictment) with conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1346
- He pled guilty under a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement expecting a 20-month sentence, $10,000 fine, $50 assessment, and two years of supervised release
- Recitals showed Fosher and others used warrants to commit robberies; most co-conspirators pleaded guilty
- George served his sentence and completed two years of supervised release by 1999; his state retirement benefits were later suspended in 2003 due to the federal conviction
- George filed a coram nobis petition in 2004 (and again in 2010 after Skilling) alleging fundamental defects and seeking relief; the district court denied both, leading to this appeal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing collateral consequences are shown post-Skilling | George argues continued pension/health effects suffice | George contends Skilling creates a broader basis for coram nobis relief | No; continuing consequences must be shown and are not satisfied here |
| Whether Skilling affects jurisdiction or validity of the plea | Skilling undermines the conviction by showing no bribery/kickbacks | Skilling clarifies elements but does not divest jurisdiction or plea validity | Skilling does not divest subject-matter jurisdiction; plea remains valid under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 |
| Whether the plea and finality weigh against coram nobis relief | Finality should be overridden due to fundamental error | Guilty plea and finality counsel against extraordinary relief and indicate no fundamental error | Finality and plea waivers weigh against granting coram nobis relief |
| Whether discretionary factors support denying coram nobis relief | Court should exercise discretion to correct evident error post-Skilling | Discretionary relief should be exercised sparingly to avoid undermining final judgments | Court declined to exercise discretion in petitioner’s favor; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (establishes tripartite test and deference to district findings in coram nobis)
- Hager v. United States, 993 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1993) (continues collateral-consequences requirement for coram nobis)
- Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (establishes extraordinary-writ threshold: only to achieve justice)
- Denedo v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2213 (2009) (emphasizes restraint and finality in post-conviction relief)
- Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008) (advocates case-by-case approach and discretion in coram nobis)
- In re Cargill, 66 F.3d 1256 (1st Cir. 1995) (highlights flexible, discretionary nature of extraordinary writs)
- Barrett v. United States, 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999) (noted as part of the tripartite framework for coram nobis)