Talk:United States v. Binion

Untitled
This article is on a legal case, United States v. Binion. On Wikipedia, most legal cases have large portions directly quotes from the court's decision. However, I have substantially changes as much as I can and still portray the case accurately. -- Mattisse 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a first name be so much to ask for Binion?
It seems sloppy not to include a first name for this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.64.81 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant Case and a Loathsome Article: Please delete it!
1. This is a largely inconsequential "unpublished" case of little precedential value. It has never been cited by any published court decision, it was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and even after the recent amendment to FRAP 32.1, it still can not be cited in federal appellate briefs.

2. The current cite "900 S.W.2d 702" is to the wrong case. That case, decided in 1994, found in the South Western Reporter, Second Series, is from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, a Tennessee state (as opposed to federal) court, and deals with whether a U-turn made 1000 feet before a road block designed to check for "driver's licenses and vehicle registration violations," thus circumventing it, gives rise to reasonable suspicion to support an "investigatory" stop. That Binion court answered in the negative. The Binion case that this wiki article is supposed to be about (I guess--who really knows?)is "UNREPORTED." Still, valid citations for it include: "132 Fed.Appx. 89" and "2005 WL 1220363."

3. Among the many curiosities within this mess of an article is the statement that the case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals from "Federal District Court for the Eastern District." Humm. The Eastern District of what??? Find out through research! The case is available in its unpublished fullness here: http://vlex.com/vid/19469412  and http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/041546U.pdf  But do not look here:  http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/124.pdf

4. The statement that "[t]he court stated that because of the feigned illness, the defendant was not accepting responsibility for his behavior as is normally required in a plea of guilty and therefore the normal reduction in sentence for a guilty plea was waived," is confusing. "Acceptance of responsibility" is broader than a guilty plea. A defendant may plead guilty and still minimize or deflect "responsibility" for the offense and my thus be denied a sentence range reduction therefor. Likewise, a defendant who goes to trial and loses may still "accept responsibility" by displays of remorse and regret, or acts of restitution, for example.

5. Perhaps the most idiotic confusion in this article is its apparent suggestion that Mr. Binion was charged with or accused of some species of "obstruction of justice" as a crime. Certainly, Title 18, Chapter 73 of the United States Code defines a series of crimes under that heading: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html  HOWEVER, THE BINION CASE IS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  Binion was charged with weapons possession ONLY. After faking mental illness he was, on his own motion, sent to the loonie bin for a competency evaluation. He was found competent and later admitted to faking the whole thing. Since he couldn't get a plea offer he liked, he elected to plead guilty outright (sometimes called an "open plea")--probably hoping the judge would give him a fair shake for sparing everyone the nuisance of a trial. The PSI invoked § 3C1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. That section reads as follows:

 "§ 3C1.1. Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice 

If (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant's offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (ii) a closely related offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels." 

This provision has nothing to do with the federal crime(s) of obstruction of justice. It relates only to sentencing. No federal court has held that a criminal defendant who feigns mental illness during the course of a criminal case commits a new federal crime thereby. Binion stands only for the proposition that certain defined conduct by a defendant related to a their case may warrant two-level enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1.

Even here, Binion is uninteresting. On the issue of sentencing enhancements based on faking mental illness as "obstructing" under the USSG, there are actually two other published cases specifically affirming it: U.S. v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1998) and U.S. v. Batista, 483 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2007). If you are worried about this application of the USSG, then look to these cases.

However, while it says nothing of the sort, this case is now being cited in other Wikipedia articles for the proposition that a criminal defendant who fakes mental illness can be charged with and convicted of the crime of obstructing justice under federal law. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Oh yeah.

6. FYI:  Certiorari was denied to Mr. Binion in Binion v. U.S., 546 U.S. 919, 126 S.Ct. 297, 163 L.Ed.2d 259, 74 USLW 3210 (U.S. Oct 03, 2005)(Case No. 05-5880).

7. Mr. Binion's first name is "Dammeon."

8. For my part, I think Binion getting 78 months for simply having a gun (in this instance, a handgun) with a felony conviction on his record is excessive. Others will disagree.

This has been a painful waste of my time. Criticality (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)