Prologue — Gementera v. United States

Supreme Court, U.8.

FILED

05-227 AuG 11 2005

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

S

SHAWN GEMENTERA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

¢

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

+

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

S

ARTHUR K. WACHTEL

Counsel of Record

170 Columbus Avenue, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94133

415-248-1000

and oy

MAITREYA BADAMI

2019 Webster Street

San Francisco, CA 94115

415-345-9588

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Does the imposition of a condition of supervised

release intended publicly to humiliate an offender by

forcing him to stand in front of a United States Post Office

wearing a sign board advertising his conviction violate the

Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3583 et seq.?

Does the imposition of such a shaming condition

violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and

unusual punishments?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .. .........2.....scecccccesecseesereeeeees i

So Ey SP Ti hi cscccccecsnngitibstiincnsinnshitntinaenssnnceniiaiiine 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................cccccceceeeees 1

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

ae CASED o cttecevitietinbintosesisdulalianbatiotcitcestebdbiaiiategentetalibaine 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............cccccsseccceseersseeeeeees 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Underlying Facts.....................:::cc0000+ 4

B. The Shaming Condition...................0:c:000 5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION............ 5

EE, vocrrsntisdibcktvnsssectesupiiippsienctegihaniedinnatiaiads 8

I. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI

BECAUSE THE NINTH CIRCUITS APPROVAL

OF A SUPERVISED RELEASE CONDITION

WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO HUMIL-

IATE DEFENDANT VIOLATES ITS OWN

PRECEDENT AND THE SENTENCING RE-

POS AGT Cr FOG vscistiens.. 0--sartcictveinngerstenstitonn 8

A. The District Court’s Express Purpose In

Imposing The Sandwich Board Condition

Was To Punish Defendant By Publicly

RINGS TID dcthttercvscincntuniainnniienninndiianian 9

B. The Majority’s Position That The Shaming

Condition Is Not Punishment Contradicts

Precedent And Congressional Intent.......... 10

C. As Demonstrated By Amici Curiae In The

Ninth Circuit, The Applicable Academic

Literature Holds That Shaming Is

Punitive, Rather Than Rehabilitative........ 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

II. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI

BECAUSE THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S APPROVAL

OF THE SHAMING PUNISHMENT CONFLICTS

WITH OTHER CIRCUITS ‘ND THIS COURTS

PRECEDENT INTERPRETING THE EIGHTH

AMENDMENT’S PROSCRIPTION OF CRUEL

AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS. .................... 20

ee Be ARR EIB EN See os 24

APPENDIX A: Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals (August 9, 2004) ............. App.1

APPENDIX B: Order of District Court for the North-

ern District of California (February

iy SEE i dicsctenindittshiscoscnipaailiintelwenis App. 32

APPENDIX C: Order of District Court for the North-

ern District of California (March 4,

APPENDIX D: Order of the District Court for the

APPENDIX E: Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals Denying Petition for Re-

hearing (May 13, 2005).................. App. 65

APPENDIX F: Excerpt of Amici Curiae Brief of

Law Professors Submitted in Support

of Appellant Shawn Gementera’s !’e-

tition for Rehearing with Suggestion

for Rehearing En Banc (September

is SO ieeincctio<citeinbieidaeenicathasamhatiiidinincaa’ App. 66

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

APPENDIX G: Memorandum of Probation Office

of the Northern District of Califor-

nia and District Court Order (May

DS TE cveviccdittendcceiedetg i ccadaa App. 76

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FEDERAL CASES:

Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)............. 23

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) .............ccceeceeeees 21

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) ..........ccccccsecseeeees 22

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978) ..............0.000005 23

Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997) .....11, 23

Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1968).................. 6

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) .........ccccccceeererevees 7, 22, 23

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) .............ccccccceseeeeees 20, 21

United States v. Balogun, 146 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.

IIIS SESS LS IS 5 SE 7

United ‘States v. Bonnet-Grullon, 212 F.3d 692 (2d

ie TID on ttircithaiednscscctabclicssevvnphtletiesiciectaiialitiiecsssssedelviecesich 8

United States v. Eyler, 67 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1995).... 10, 11

United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.

Pe ieletivic<cscctlstidurceccadinamiasececenctidigtnbesccncultiiipeieesundiia passim

United States v. Jackson, 189 F.3d 820 (9th Cir.

NE ccc tcitlntinsinvvictiialbsassecscidillddiiansiceibtibadeinacialtialiescniats 6

United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994)........ 13

United States v. Sofsk», 287 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002)....... 14

United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2003)...6, 19

United States v. Walker, 27 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 1994)....... 13

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) ................... 21

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

STATE CASES:

Ballenger v. State, 436 S.E.2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App.

SIND shi siaheqwcsieietiseininiieiliakaissdiridBiNahs Cincchcicala en inc teciaiaas 12

People v. Hackler, 13 Cal.App.4th 1049 (1999)........... 11,12

People v. Johnson, 528 N.E.2d 1360 (Ill. App. Ct.

OOD niincidoccvictbiihipicicininttiicoestiahdsiadis ibn sddtddivediaaie 12

People v. Letterlough, 655 N.E.2d 146 (N.Y. 1998)........... 11

STATUTES:

BE PE vicipiiehiinostiqntidliiddvinceindodinintoscummapliientoadionn 2,5

pg cP RT TL ew 2,5

18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)B), (aX2XC), (aX2)D)......... 2

18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(b)(1)-(b)(10) and (b)(12)-(b)(20).............. 2

as OD linc cccevssctitsitcsucshssiiilhhencessetibibabitmassiiaimdidpl 3

ae, SO vccnicccictediicscusntitptiatnnapsmniteaibenescusin 1, 10

SE Ee AA eID covicccoctibicsanncrsdodaliiciannenscsilietncendioacte 19

AG cn jalibealitiversdeccacuteorccisdivtstnaerneinenadicuaelen 2,8

SE acd IE isi ertassivintiddhcdirenniecnsibataniin tina aadadihaacalanane 1

ER RB Se OR etree eee > 19

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 ...............cccccseseeeeees 3

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

United States Constitution, Amendment VIII .......... passim

vii

{ \ EE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Charles E. Frazier & Thomas Meisenholder,

Explanatory Notes on Criminality and Emotional

Ambivelence, 8 Qualitative Sociology 266 (1985)....

John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegra-

SRI, FS CG i ccccisicsserncntvvieraiapevencescctsighnnianaptotapiclie

Dan M. Kahan & Eric A. Posner, Shaming White-

Collar Criminals: A Proposal for Reform of the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 42 J.L. & Econ.

BR, Sr CRD vncdiderteicchctcnstiliniashaehcckstoailveseratestatlats

Dan Markel, Are Shaming Punishments Beautifully

Retributive?, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 2157 (2001)..............

June Price Tangney, Patricia Wagner, Carey

Fletcher & Richard Gramzow, Shamed Into An-

ger? The Relation of Shame and Guilt to Anger

and Self-Reported Aggression, 62 J. Personality

and Social Psych. 669, 673 (1992).............ccccceeeeseeeee

June Price Tangney, Rowland S. Miller, Laura

Flicker & Deborah Hill Barlow, Are Shame, Guilt

and Embarrassment Distinct Emotions?, 70 J.

Personality and Social Psych. 1256, 1267 (1996) ....

Stephen P. Garvey, Can Shaming Punishments Edu-

cate?, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 733, 757 (1998) ........ 15, 16,

Toni Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Crimi-

nal Law, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 1880, 1920-21 (1991) ........

Toni M. Massaro, The Meanings of Shame: Implica-

tions for Legal Reform, 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L.

SOG, BFS CAGE) svrcnccsosnsccscnsncdintessvcvnsstensininenoviniitesatdes

Walter R. Gove, The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluat-

ing A Perspective (2d ed. 1980)............:::cccseceeceeeeeees

Page

17, 18

1

OPINIONS BELOW

The published opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (App. 1-31) is reported at United States v. Ge-

mentera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004) (Hawkins, J., dis-

senting).

The district court orally imposed at sentencing the

condition of supervised release that is the subject of this

petition (App. 32-40). The district court reconsidered its

initial order and imposed an amended condition at a

subsequent hearing, issuing a written order on that date

specifically addressing the condition of supervised release

in question (App. 47-64). Those orders are unreported.

¢

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered its judg-

ment on August 9, 2004. Petitioner thereafter requested

and obtained an extension of time to file a petition for

rehearing and/or petition for hearing en banc. The Ninth

Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and for re-

hearing en banc in an order dated May 13, 2005 (App. 65).

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1).

e

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) provides, in relevant part:

Conditions of supervised release.

{Mandatory conditions of supervised release, not

relevant to the instant petition.]

The court may order, as.a further condition of supervised

release, to the extent that such condition—

(1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth

in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (aX 2B), (aX2XC),

and (a(2)(D);

(2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty

than is reasonably necessary for the pur-

poses set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B),

(aX2XC), and (a)(2)(D); and

(3) is consistent with any pertinent policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Com-

mission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a) any

condition set forth as a discretionary condi-

tion of probation in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(b\(1)

through (b)(10) and (b)\(12) through (b)(20),

and any other condition it considers to be

appropriate.

” * «

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Consti-

tution provides:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments in-

flicted.

°

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 27, 2001, the United States filed a two-

count indictment in the Northern District of California

charging defendant Gementera and co-defendant Andrew

Choi with mail theft (18 U.S.C. § 1708) and receipt of a

stolen United States Treasury check (18 U.S.C. § 641). On

3

May 21, 2002, defendant entered a guilty plea to count

one. On February 25, 2003, the district court sentenced

defendant to a term of two months’ incarceration and a

period of three years’ supervised release. Without prior

notice to the parties, the district court imposed the follow-

ing supervised release condition:

And he shall perform 100 hours of community

service under the direction of the probation offi-

cer that will include standing in front of a postal

facility in the City and County of San Francisco

for 100 hours with a sandwich board which in

large letters declares quote: “I stole mail. This is

my punishment.”

He shall report in to the postmaster of the facil-

ity who will keep time records to make sure that

the defendant has complied with this directive.

(App. 38).

On March 3, 2003, defendant filed a motion to correct

his sentence, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-

dure 35. Defendant challenged the imposition of the

sandwich board condition and propgsed alternative super-

vised release conditions. The district court denied the Rule

35 motion, but reduced the number of hours it would

require defendant to wear the sandwich board from 100 to

eight.

Judgment was entered on March 4, 2003. Gementera

appealed from the order imposing the shaming condition

on the grounds that the condition violated both the Sen-

tencing Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3583 et seg.) and the

Eighth Amendment. The Office of the Federal Public

Defender for the Northern District of California submitted

a brief as amicus curiae, urging reversal of the shaming

4

condition. On August 9, 2004, a majority of the panel

affirmed the district court’s imposition of the shaming

condition, Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins authored a

dissenting opinion. |

Gementera subsequently sought and obtained a

thirty-day extension of time, to and including September

22, 2004, to request panel rehearing and/or rehearing en |

banc. A consortium of law professors received the consent

of the parties and approval of the Ninth Circuit to submit ©

a brief as amicus curiae, supporting Gementera’s petition

_ for review and/or rehearing en banc (App. 66-70). Timely

petitions requesting panel rehearing and for rehearing en

banc were denied in a Ninth Circuit order issued on May

13, 2005. Judge Hawkins would have granted panel

rehearing. After a judge of the Ninth Circuit requested a

vote on whether to rehear en banc, the matter failed to

receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active

judges.

With its submission ninety days from the date of that

order, the instant petition is timely before this court.

e

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Underlying Facts.

The following is a summary of the essential facts

underlying defendant’s conviction for mail theft, as set

forth in the majority opinion of the Ninth Circuit panel

(Unite States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004)):

Shawn Gementera pilfered letters from several mailboxes

along San Francisco's Fulton Street on May 21, 2001.

A police officer who observed the episode immediately