US v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, No. 03-1795. A ex-cop plead guilty to “misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4” pursuant to a (pretty advantageous) plea agreement. Now he wants to withdraw it. Not gonna happen. The First is going to bend as far as the government wants to preserve the plea agreement, regardless of the fact that it appears to be endorsing (on plain error review) a convict without any real overt act. This cop was somehow involved in drug trafficking.
Just in case you want to know what the statute says:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The prosecutor articulated it as such:
In the instant case, the offense of conviction, misprision of felony, requires proof that: "1) the principal committed and completed the alleged felony; 2) defendant had full knowledge of that fact; 3) defendant failed to notify the authorities; and 4) defendant took steps to conceal the crime."
In this case, the government argues that because the
defendant reported the crime that he had some involvement in, but did not fully
explain his involvement in it, he “misprisoned” the felony. So, the fact that he was partially truthful
is, in fact the “affirmative act” that the constitution and common law
require. See Marbury v. Brooks, 20
Comments