To Joseph Dixon, Assistant U.S. Attorney

September 29th, 2004 - 7:07pm by Badger
Tags:

Joseph Dixon III
Assistant U.S. Attorney
600 United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415

R.E. United States v. Adam Fuchs

Dear Mr. Dixon,

I'm writing this letter in hopes that some agreement can be reached concerning the Career Criminal aspects of my case. I have wanted to plead guilty and speed the trial process along as quickly as I could from the start. However, I can not in good conscience accept a plea agreement containing the Career Criminal Enhancement. I can understand your desire to punish me to the fullest extent of the law, but such an endorsement benefits no one. Especially when issues are as cloudy as they are in this case. It does not benefit me to serve the extra 100 or so months that such an endorsement adds to my sentence; and it does not benefit the government to pay to have me incarcerated that extra amount of time, especially when there are so many drug dealers and truly violent criminals striving for the chance to take my place.

Mr Dixon, I am not a violent criminal. I have not physically harmed anyone in my entire life. I have spent most of my adult life plaqued by depression and suicidal thoughts. Many times in the past I have run from those thoughts -- sometimes by test driving a car and using it to travel as far as I could. But I have never struck out to hurt anyone -- ever. Usually I was over 100 miles away by the time the vehicles owner even suspected theft. How is that violent?

In fact, Circuit Courts all across the country have ruled that auto theft is not a crime of violence. This is affirmed in the Fifth Circuit case of U.S. v. Charles. Is it fair that a crime can be technically considered violent depending not on the conditions of the crime, but on the part of the country in which it was committed? Should not the same determination of what constitutes a crime of violence be used for all Federal defendants regardless of what Circuit they are being charged in?