Edward Gibbs

Edward Gibbs entered a guilty plea to an indictment charging him with trafficking in at least 500 grams of methamphetamine (methamphetamine to your purists). That was the only thing he would confess to. A significant piece of behavior was discovered in the Presentence Report: 839 grams of meth recovered from Ed’s automobile, a 907-gram transaction Ed attempted to set up with a co-defendant, and another 907-gram deal Ed orchestrated for his son, among other things.

Gibbs’s Guidelines

Gibbs Guidelines were calculated using information from the PSR, which said – without providing any explanation – that throughout the conspiracy, a co-conspirator “delivered over 4.5 kilos of methamphetamine ice” to participants of the alleged conspiracy.

Gibb’s sentence range increased to 235-293 months because of the additional 4.5 kilograms of “ice.” Without it, he was looking at 188-235 months.

Gibb’s attorney, of course, was not pleased about this. Eddie Gibbs had acknowledged it, according to the Assistant United States Attorney, during a proffer session. Gibbs’s attorney had been present, but he had no recollection of the event.

3770Ea34 5B48 4E69 Afb7 Edward Gibbs: Guilty Because We Say So!

Although the AUSA had not been present at the meeting, she claimed to have seen notes from an agent who had.

Gibbs’s objections to the drug amount were overturned by the court, which accepted the AUSA’s assertions as admissible evidence.

And, after all, why not? After all, the AUSA is a government agent, and she explicitly said that she was such. It has to be the case. 

The Systemic issues of the “justice” system

The fact that the court accepted this as evidence and proof of Mr. Gibbs’s guilt, when said notes were not produced, or entered into the record is amazing. AUSA simply says “yea, I saw some notes, and he said he had more meth. I mean I wasn’t there, but I think I remember seeing the notes of someone random that was there”.

Are you kidding me? We have all seen how the federal system has an obscene conviction rate already, which is indicative of the fact that the rule of the game is rigged, to begin with. People realizing this 9 times out of 10 plead out for this exact reason. Now we have convictions happening just because an AUSA, thinks they saw a different number, in notes for a meeting there were not even at? and they don’t have the notes anymore? How does any of this pass the sanity test?

7th Cir. Tosses it

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last week. While district courts have the authority to accept material that would not be admitted at trial, that information must be supported by substantial proof. A sentencing judge may “rely on a presentence report if it ‘is well-supported and appears reliable.’” If a PSR meets those criteria, the burden shifts to the defendant to “com[e] forward with facts demonstrating that the information in the PSR is inaccurate or unreliable.

In most cases, a simple denial is not sufficient to transfer the burden of proof back to the prosecution, which must demonstrate that the PSR’s statement is correct. “But this all assumes that the PSR has a solid basis,” the 7th said. “If a PSR “asserts ‘nothing but a naked or unsupported charge,’” then a defendant’s denial is enough to ‘cast doubts on its accuracy. Similarly, if the PSR omits crucial information, then the defendant’s denial alone can shift the burden of proof back to the prosecution.

“Here,” the 7th held, “the district court did not have any evidence backing up the AUSA’s eleventh-hour representations about what the evidence would show, and so nothing was available to resolve the dispute about drug quantity… In the end the only thing in the record was counsel’s statement.”

I think this article by far shows how asinine, the U.S. Justice system can be at times. The fact that a federal judge thought it wise to consider this really amazed me.

Source: LL