United States v. Lynne Stewart
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13286
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Lynne Stewart was convicted in SDNY of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to provide/ conceal material support for terrorism, providing/concealing such support, and making false statements; the prior sentence was vacated for procedural error and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand, the district court applied the terrorism enhancement, and aggravated the sentence based on obstruction of justice and abuse of trust enhancements, along with lack of remorse considerations.
- The court found Stewart’s post-sentencing public statements showed lack of remorse and reflected that the original sentence was insufficient to reflect the offense’s seriousness and deter future conduct.
- Stewart challenged the resentencing on First Amendment grounds, arguing post-sentencing speech could not be used to justify a higher sentence.
- The court concluded the First Amendment did not bar consideration of such statements when relevant to sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Stewart also challenged the obstruction-of-justice and abuse-of-trust enhancements as unwarranted and argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable; the court rejected these arguments and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-sentencing public statements can justify a higher sentence | Stewart argues punishment for protected speech violates First Amendment | Stewart’s statements reflect lack of remorse/seriousness relevant to §3553(a) | No First Amendment bar; statements properly considered under §3553(a) |
| Whether obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on perjury findings was proper | Stewart contends perjury findings were unsupported | Record shows willful, material perjury; findings not clearly erroneous | Enhancement upheld |
| Whether abuse-of-trust enhancement applied | Stewart argues no abuse of position occurred | Evidence shows she abused trust as Rahman’s attorney to smuggle messages | Enhancement upheld |
| Whether substantive term is reasonable given the increase from 28 months to 120 months | Sentence quadrupled without substantial new facts | Remand permitted due to earlier procedural errors and new findings | Sentence affirmance; not substantively unreasonable |
| Whether district court relied on non-controlling opinions on remand | Remand relied on panel dissents/ en banc denial opinions | Court followed controlling majority instructions on remand | Affirmed; instructions were properly followed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kane, 452 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (use of defendant’s beliefs if relevant to sentencing factors)
- United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008) (remorse evidence admissible to illustrate future dangerousness)
- United States v. Bangert, 645 F.2d 1297 (8th Cir. 1981) (courts may consider beliefs/associations to rebut mitigating evidence)
- Lemon v. District of Columbia, 723 F.2d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (prohibition on punishment for protected beliefs unless tied to illegal activity)
- United States v. Bonds, 933 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1991) (perjury findings can be based on evidence inconsistent with defendant’s sworn statements)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (review for substantive reasonableness; deference to district court)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (remorse and sentencing considerations under §3553(a))