Criminal law - First Circuit holds federal courts lack jurisdiction to expunge criminal records on equitable grounds.

• Author: Thornton, Gabriel T.

Criminal Law--First Circuit Holds Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Expunge Criminal Records on Equitable Grounds--United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 377 (2007)

Federal courts have ordered the expungement of a defendant's criminal record when the criminal proceeding was unlawful. (1) When the defendant bases her request for expungement on equitable grounds, however, federal courts differ on whether they have jurisdiction to consider the request. (2) In United States v. Coloian, (3) the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether a district court had jurisdiction to hear a motion to expunge a criminal record on equitable grounds. (4) The court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion. (5)

Artin Coloian is an attorney and was the Chief of Staff to the former Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, Vincent "Buddy" Cianci. (6) In 2001, a federal grand jury indicted Coloian on charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. (7) The following year, after a four-day trial, a jury acquitted Coloian of both charges. (8)

In 2005, Coloian filed a motion to expunge in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. (9) Coloian argued that the court should expunge his record for reasons of equity: to prevent harm to his reputation and career. (10) In response to Coloian's motion, the government argued that the district court did not have jurisdiction to expunge a record on equitable grounds, and, in the alternative, if the court did have jurisdiction, then Coloian did not deserve expungement. (11)

The district court, in an oral disposition, held that federal courts have inherent authority to expunge criminal records, but they should use that power sparingly. (12) If Coloian's prosecution was unlawful or his criminal record constituted an extreme hardship, expungement would have been appropriate. (13) Finding that Coloian failed on both counts, the district court refused to expunge his record. (14) On appeal, the First Circuit held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider a request to expunge criminal records based on equitable grounds. (15)

When an arrest or prosecution violates federal law, courts may order the expungement of a suspect's or defendant's criminal record. (16) A court order to expunge a criminal record, however, is an extraordinary remedy. (17) In specific circumstances, federal law expressly allows for expungement. (18) In general, though, Congress favors the preservation of criminal records. (19)

When federal law does not provide for expungement of a criminal record, federal courts may only consider expungement requests using ancillary jurisdiction. (20) Ancillary jurisdiction covers claims incidental to a district court's original jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution. (21) The Supreme Court defined the contours of ancillary jurisdiction in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America. (22) Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia described the two uses of ancillary jurisdiction: to allow a single court to dispose of "factually interdependent" claims; and to "enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." (23) When courts refer to the "inherent power" of a court to consider a claim, they refer to the latter of these two uses of ancillary jurisdiction. (24)

The Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits use Justice Scalia's description of ancillary jurisdiction to determine that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider the expungement of criminal records absent a claim of unlawful arrest or prosecution. (25) In contrast, the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits hold that district courts may consider the expungement of records for reasons of equity. (26) Even those courts that allow consideration of a motion to expunge on equitable grounds seldom, if ever, grant expungement. (27) The decisions issued in the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, unlike those in their sister circuits, either came down before Kokkonen or did not apply Kokkonen's reasoning. (28)

In United States v. Coloian, the First Circuit answered for the first time whether federal courts under its jurisdiction may entertain a petition to expunge a criminal record on equitable grounds. (29) The court sided with the Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, holding that federal courts may only use ancillary jurisdiction for one of the two purposes Justice Scalia described in Kokkonen. (30) According to the court, Coloian's request failed the first test, because it was not "factually interdependent" with the claims originally before the district court--the charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. (31) Coloian also failed the second test, as the court held that federal courts do not require the power to consider expungement in order to function successfully. (32) The First Circuit held that district courts do not have jurisdiction to consider expungement of criminal records on equitable grounds. (33)

The First Circuit was right to apply Kokkonen's conception of ancillary jurisdiction to Coloian. (34) In the absence of statutory authority, federal courts may only expunge criminal records by using their ancillary jurisdiction. (35) Not only was the First Circuit correct to apply Kokkonen, it also applied it properly. (36) The original claim before the district court--that Coloian was guilty of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery--was not factually interdependent with whether it would be fair to expunge his criminal record in order to protect his career and reputation. (37) Furthermore, the district court functioned successfully when the jury acquitted Coloian. (38)

Congress has provided for expungement of criminal records in specific circumstances and has also expressed its preference...