C12 - Business LawCase Analysis 2

1 C12 - Business LawCase Analysis 2 Summarize the facts of the case George Vernon Hansen served as a representative for the second Congressional District of Idaho during the years 1965 and 1969 and then again from 1975, right up to his conviction in 1984. Hansen was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C § 1001 by way of submitting false statements concerning matters within the jurisdiction of a division inside the United States. Hansen’s conviction was due to his failure to disclose a $50,000 loan from 1978 ,which he gave to his spouse, on his EIGA forms which was co-signed by Nelson Bunker Hunt. Hansen also omitted a $84,475 profit made from silver commodities which was made during 1979, a loan just over $61,000 received from Nelson Baker Hunt during 1980 along with $135,000 in total for a collection of loans received from private individuals during 1981. Hansen contested how the facts of the case applied under section 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and moved to dismiss the charge however the court denied this motion. Hansen tried to appeal however the court established that the all counts from the conviction of 1984 was to be upheld. Hansen also filed a motion to receive another trial as well as other relief to which the court denied. Hansen served 1 year in the federal prison facility and was instructed to pay a total of $40,000 for the four fines incurred. During a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Ohio on March 12th, 1992, Hansen was convicted of a total of forty-five counts of bank fraud. Seven days later, Judge Edward Lodge sentenced Hansen to serve forty-eight months in prison while he was still in federal custody. This made the sentence a total length of three years for Hansen. Because of another trial of similar nature being overruled in 1995, Hansen filed a motion for the court to 2 relinquish both his conviction from 1984 as well as his prison sentence. He also moved to have the monies used to pay the $40,000 fines to be returned in full with added interest as well as using the time he has already spent in jail to reduce the prison sentence imposed from the 1992 conviction. Identify the parties and explain each party’s position The petitioner, George Vernon Hansen filed a petition against the United States Supreme Court. Hansen applied for relief for his convictions and a refund for fines paid and the court stated that the petitioner can only contest the sentence in terms of time which was served while in custody and the request for relief was denied under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals Hansen first appeared at the United States District Court, District of Columbia for his 1984 conviction and was sentenced. Hansen also appeared again in this same court in 1992 where he was convicted again on different charges. In 1995, Hansen requested an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. What is the legal issue in question in this case? The legal issue in question in this case is should the court dismiss Hansen of his charges and yield to his relief due to the fact that the same charges were brought under United States v. Bramblett and the case was overruled and they both violated the same section 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 3 How did the court rule on the legal issue of this case? Hansen argued that due to the similarities in the Hubbard v. United States case and his own that the court move to relinquish his 1984 conviction and sentence as well as have all funds paid towards fines which were imposed by the court, returned in full with added interest. He also requested that the time which he has spent in federal custody be used as credit toward the three year prison sentence which he was to serve. The court denied his request to use his time served toward his prison sentence. The court agree to vacate the 1984 conviction but denied amending the 1992 conviction of an addition to his already decided one year prison sentence. The court agreed to return the funds retrieved for the fines imposed, a total of $40,000, but denied his request for interest to be added to the return of the funds. After the Hubbard v. United States case was overruled, this gave authority under that case to decide that the indictment as well as the instructions received from the jury, along with basis for the petitioner's conviction would be, and are, invalid. In 1984, the petitioner was convicted of conduct that, after Hubbard, is no longer criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. What facts did the court find to be most important in making its decision? A major influencer in the court’s decision to appeal the charges against George Hansen came from the overruled case of United States v. Bramblett and how to facts and charges in that case were decided differently than Hansen’s. The federal judge which imposed the sentence on Hansen was faced with a discretionary decision and was assisted by assessing a four-part analysis to come to a decision. Hansen’s request for the refund of fines paid was decided according to sections under the Tucker Act however the constitution states no obligation to pay 4 interest on funds to be returned. The court also addressed Hansen’s request for relief of the 1992 conviction however 28 U.S.C.§ 2255, clearly states that relief can only be requested by the court that ruled the sentence. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? Provide an explanation for your reasoning either agree or disagree. I agree with the court’s decision because the court based their decision on specific section of the law and I feel as though their final ruling was fair for both the United States and George Hansen. I feel as though the ruling of the return of funds was fair and that the request of interest was an outrageous request on the behalf of Hansen and agree with the court’s decision to deny. This return was in accordance to flaws made within the United States District Court, District of Columbia. I think that comparison to other cases should always be considered when making decision regarding cases of the same nature and charges. I disagree with the court’s decision to deny the use of time served in federal custody to be used towards the three year prison sentence and this would mean that his sentence would be longer than actually convicted in court.