Proposals for a Comprehensive Federal Conviction Expungement Law
White-Collar Crime columnists Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert write: The lifelong collateral consequences of a criminal conviction, imposed by state and federal statutes and regulations, can make it nearly impossible for many to obtain gainful employment, support their families or otherwise live productive lives. Unfortunately, under today's federal legal framework, expungement is virtually impossible. Although a near-term legislative fix may be a long shot, recent bipartisan legislation proposed in both houses of Congress shows that the issue at least is on federal lawmakers' radar screen.
October 02, 2017 at 02:05 PM
11 minute read
Individuals with criminal records often face extraordinary hurdles in rebuilding their lives due to the significant collateral consequences of their conviction—even after years or decades of law abiding conduct. The lifelong collateral consequences, imposed by state and federal statutes and regulations, can make it nearly impossible for many to obtain gainful employment, support their families or otherwise live productive lives. See Robert G. Morvillo and Robert J. Anello, “The Need for 'Second Chances' After Suffering a Federal Conviction,” N.Y.L.J., April 7, 2009. Expungement, the removal of a criminal record, particularly after a period of demonstrated rehabilitation, is one remedy that can assist individuals to avoid the “scarlet letter” of a criminal record and the associated collateral consequences.1 Unfortunately, under today's federal legal framework, expungement—even by the judge who imposed the underlying conviction—is virtually impossible. Although a near-term legislative fix may be a long shot, recent bipartisan legislation proposed in both houses of Congress shows that the issue at least is on federal lawmakers' radar screen.
Many federal judges readily acknowledge the often unfair difficulties faced by individuals convicted of a crime. They vary widely, however, in their approach to applications for expungement. Some district courts routinely deny such applications, often asserting that they do not have jurisdiction over applications for expungement. Those courts that believe they have jurisdiction to order the expungement of a criminal record typically reserve such power for “unusual or extreme” cases. Even in instances such applications are denied, however, federal judges—most recently the Second Circuit—have called upon Congress to step into the fray to provide an avenue to redress the collateral consequences of criminal convictions in appropriate cases.
In the past decade, many state lawmakers have enacted laws providing for expungement or sealing remedies, with over 60 percent of states broadening their expungement laws between 2009 and 2014. Brian M. Murray, “A New Era for Expungement Law Reform? Recent Developments at the State and Federal Levels,” 10 Harvard Law and Policy Review 361, 369 (2016). Newly proposed federal legislation offers hope that the federal system may follow these states' lead, even with a conservative Congress and administration. Recent Republican pronouncements regarding criminal justice reform, and evidence that expungement opportunities might result in a reduction of recidivism rates and corresponding savings in spending on federal incarceration are reasons for optimism.
Collateral Consequence of Criminal Convictions
Estimates from the National Employment Law Project put the proportion of adults in the United States having a criminal record at between 25 and 35 percent. Id. at 363. Approximately 8.6 percent of the adult population has a felony conviction. National Employment Law Project et al., Legislative Update, “State Reforms Reducing Collateral Consequences for People with Criminal Records: 2011-2012 Legislative Round-Up” (September 2012). Accordingly, a substantial number of Americans are forced to deal with the stigma of a criminal record and the accompanying collateral consequences.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIndian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
3 minute read'Politically Destabilizing'?: Trump Lawyers Say NY Criminal Case Must Be Dismissed
'A National Calamity': US Judge Says Archegos Founder Bill Hwang Should Get 18-Year Sentence for Fraud, Market Manipulation
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250