“The district court’s finding that Naranjo was involved in a five-kilogram cocaine transaction does not preclude a finding of sentencing entrapment. We now address Naranjo’s alternative argument that the district court erred in not finding that the government engaged in sentencing entrapment.” U. S. v. Naranjo 52 F.3d 245 (1995) (sentencing entrapment)
From an email sent by Dennis Roberts on 16 November 2010, in reply to an email soliciting a second chair on a jury trial case involving the below-described judge (name redacted).
It ain’t me as second chair as that total prick, Judge XXX hates my guts. He banished me from his courtroom After he did that I had another case assigned to him. I reminded him of my banishment. He denied he had ever banished me. I said, “maybe you don’t remember but the transcript does” (said off the top of my head – I have no idea whether it was in the transcript or not). So he said to the AUSA, can’t you relate this to another case. AUSA said he couldn’t think of any. I suggested that since there were thousands of cases on the docket titled United States v. Smith, U.S. v Jones, etc that they could just relate it to one of those. In Federal Court, a judge can relate a case to another if one of the parties is identical so although I was joking when I suggested that, kidding that since the US was a party in every criminal case the Judge could relate it to any US v whatever. Of course, the Judge and the AUSA knew I was joking, but the next thing I knew I got a note telling me the case was assigned to Judge YYY (best judge in that division of the district) and had a tremendous result from him. Now, if you want to get away from Judge XXX join me as second chair and you’ll see how fast they spin the wheel again. Good luck He is a total prick.
I reminded him of my banishment
I could tell you dozens of stories but one of the best is that he said he would keep out a State PROSECUTION, not a conviction, for cocaine about 12 years ago which had been thrown out of State Court pre-trial on Fourth Amendment grounds, IF I would not raise something as a defense, I now remember what it was: He told me not to suggest that my client knew nothing about cocaine. That was pretty easy. This was the case that got me banished. Anyhow the prosecution rests their case, I rest mine, and the evil Judge turns to the AUSA and says I will let you reopen to bring in that cocaine prosecution as Mr. Roberts “opened the door”. I said, “that’s just not true what did I do or say that opened the door”. He refused to answer. I was at the podium at the time. I was so angry that I was holding a pencil which I threw down on the podium really hard. Eraser hit and it bounced into the air hitting his clerk on the head. I could just apologize or go with my true feelings which were that I was so angry I let all my anger out and flopped down at council table with tears of frustration and anger saying “I just can’t take this anymore”. The prosecutor, a kind of decent guy, came over and put his arm around me and told the judge we should adjourn for the day. I drove home (about an hour with no traffic) and when I arrived my associate met me in the driveway and told me, “The prosecutor just called and asked me to tell you he wasn’t going to introduce that evidence and for me to get a good night’s sleep”.
Part of XXX’s animus was that after I saw he was going to fuck me no matter what I did (he didn’t believe my client’s story which I also had difficulty believing) I decided to fuck with him. So every night (I was working till 4 and 5 in the morning) I would send him a fax. The faxes were nuts, little chatty notes about my evening, how my kids were angry that I was never home, how the TV said it would rain tomorrow so I might be late, shit like that. One day he says “Mr Roberts, there is something wrong with your fax machine. I got one today when I arrived in my chambers and it said it was send at 4 a.m.” Oh, thank you your Honor. I will fix it when I get home I sent it at 5 a.m. After a few more of those he told me “do not send me another fax” so that night I sent him a fax which said “I’m not sure what you are saying. Can I not send you a fax about the litigation or if I am ill, or no faxes at all no matter how important?” He never said another word about the faxes which kept coming.
He is a shill for the prosecution and that is one of his better traits
Enjoy Judge XXX. It will be the worst experience of your life. He is a shill for the prosecution and that is one of his better traits. Oh; the reason he hated me in the cocaine case (the one causing my banishment) is that Bill Panzer and I took U. S. v. Naranjo 52 F.3d 245 (1995) (sentencing entrapment) to the 9th and reversed him. Sentencing entrapment means that the Govt could get a much higher mandatory minimum if it were 5 kilos he agreed to buy from the narcs, not just one or two. It doubled the mandatory minimum from 5 to 10 years. Actually I just remembered what Judge XXX didn’t want me to raise – that my guy knew nothing about cocaine which would have been ludicrous but I guess the judge thought I might do it so he said he’d keep out the 12 year old prosecution, never was a conviction, if I didn’t suggest my guy knew nothing about cocaine. Fair enough. Then he tried to screw me and the client. Rumor had it that he was going to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and that idiotic decision of his was the kiss of death.
An excerpt from Naranjo is below.
52 F.3d at 250-251: “[T]he court ultimately found that sentencing entrapment had not occurred because “if you look at the full situation, it seems pretty clear that [the DEA] had a pretty good reason to believe that [Naranjo] had been heavily involved in drug trafficking.” This statement lacks the specificity required by Conkins, especially since it fails to provide any 251*251 finding relevant to the critical issue of Naranjo’s predisposition to engage in a five-kilogram cocaine transaction.”
251: “In the absence of specific findings on the record, we are uncertain as to what findings the district court relied on in finding Naranjo predisposed to cocaine dealing”
also at page 251: “Because the district court provided no factual findings on the record, we are unable to ascertain what facts it relied upon in finding that Naranjo did not adequately prove sentencing entrapment.”
That’s an Appellate Court that was not happy with Judge XXX.
A brief biography of Dennis Roberts
I spent the summer of ’63 as a law student, then 1964-1966 as a young attorney working with C. B. King in [Albany] All-Benny, Georgia. I returned after I graduated law school at U. C. Berkeley where my then wife started the Albany Georgia Nursery School with C. B.’s wife, Carol King. It was enormously successful as it provided Head Start with living proof that you could run an interracial school in the deep South.
We then moved to NY where I was the first staff employee of the Center for Constitutional Rights (Arthur Kinoy, Bill Kunstler, Morty Stavis) I was there for three years and we returned to Berkeley where I did all the pre-trial work with Michael Tigar in the Chicago 8 and Angela Davis cases.
Among many, many others, I also represented Dennis Banks and we fought Dennis’ case for 13 years to a very successful conclusion.
All written content (c) Dennis Roberts