Notice Of Appeal Fall 2021

• Published date: 26 October 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Cozen O'Connor
• Author: Mr Stephen Miller and Catherine Yun

A quarterly newsletter reviewing Third Circuit opinions impacting white collar defense lawyers

Precedential Opinions of Note

Court Holds 2009 Amendments to 31 U.S.C. ' 3729(a)(1)(B) Apply Retroactively

United States ex rel. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 98 v. The Fairfield Company (July 13, 2021), No. 20-1922
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/201922p.pdf
Unanimous decision: Smith (writing), McKee, and Ambro

Background

A construction contractor agreed to improve a railroad track - a project partially funded by the federal government. The contractor misclassified its laborers, although its federal contract required accurate classification under a federal wage law. IBEW Local 98, as Relator, sued under the False Claims Act. It alleged the contractor falsely certified payrolls and submitted those payrolls to the government, in exchange for funding.

Holding

The Court upheld judgment against the contractor. As a matter of first impression, the Court determined that the amended liability standard under ' 3729(a)(1)(B) - of "knowingly . caus[ing] . a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim" - applied retroactively to the Union's case. The Court then determined the contractor's falsely certified payrolls were material to the Government's payments because the Government anticipated accurate classification and payrolls as conditions of payment.

Key Quote

"Congress's 2009 amendments to 31 U.S.C. ' 3729(a)(1)(B) apply retroactively to cases pending on or after June 7, 2008, no matter when the underlying conduct occurred." (Slip Op. at 69.)

Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Choice Warrants Habeas Relief in Capital Case

Randolph v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (July 20, 2021), No. 20-9003
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/209003p.pdf
Unanimous decision: Restrepo (writing), Chagares, and Krause

Background

The week before his state-capital trial opened, Defendant hired an attorney to replace his court-appointed one. Three times the trial court denied the new attorney's requests for modest adjournments. In his final request, counsel had sought a continuance of three hours, to attend a prior engagement. When counsel failed to appear for jury selection, the trial court rejected counsel's entry of appearance. Thereafter, Defendant proceeded to trial with his court-appointed attorney, and a jury convicted Defendant of first-degree murder. The trial court imposed a death sentence.

Holding

The Court affirmed the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus. It reasoned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's subsequent affirmance of the trial court's rulings applied federal law erroneously. Specifically, the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice.

Key Quote

"Here, however, the state trial court's ruling prevented Stretton from picking Randolph's jury, a critical stage of the criminal proceeding, and the court was unwilling to be even minimally accommodating to Stretton's reasonable request for a minor delay." (Slip Op. at 22.)

Court Holds Commentary to Sentencing Guidelines Enhancement is Entitled to a Rebuttable Presumption of Deference

United States v. Perez (July 22, 2021), No. 19-1469
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191469p.pdf
...