Case Study: Analysis of United States vs. George Vernon Hansen (1995)

This case study analyzes the case of United States of America vs. George Nernon Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688 (1995). The case involves George Vernon Hansen, a former congressman, convicted of banking fraud and making false statements. The study examines the procedural history, including Hansen's conviction and subsequent appeal based on the Supreme Court's rulings in United States vs. Bramblett and Hubbard vs. United States. The legal issues revolve around the application of the federal habeas corpus statute and the writ of error coram nobis. The court decided it lacked jurisdiction for habeas corpus relief but granted the writ of error coram nobis, setting aside Hansen's 1984 conviction due to changes in the interpretation of the law. The analysis agrees with the court's decision, emphasizing the retroactive application of changes in substantive law to prevent potential miscarriages of justice, particularly in criminal cases where the fundamental nature of the act is altered. The case study references relevant legal precedents and provides a detailed analysis of the court's reasoning and decision.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. GEORGE NERNON HANSEN 906 F. Supp. 688 (1995)
Name Of the Student
Name Of the University
Author’s Note

1
CASE STUDY
Table of Contents
Facts of the Case:.............................................................................................................................2
Procedural History of the case:........................................................................................................3
Legal Issue:......................................................................................................................................3
Court’s Decision:.............................................................................................................................3
Relevant Facts for the Decision:......................................................................................................4
Agree or Disagree with reasons:......................................................................................................5

2
CASE STUDY
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner is a custodial prisoner serving a sentence which was imposed upon him by
the Court in 1992 for 45 counts of banking fraudulent activities. However in 1993, the sentence
was increased as per the Sentencing Guidelines as stated in his conviction of 1984 in this Court.
Thus, the petition has been filed in accordance to Habeas Corpus Statute section 28 USC 2255 or
the writ of error Coram Nobis in order to set aside his conviction of 1984 under the False
Statement Act 18 USC section 1001.
Parties and their position:
The petitioner is George Vernon Hansen, who represented the Second Congressional
District of Idaho in the years from 1965 to 1969 and further from the year 1975 till the election
subsequent to his conviction in 1984. The financial disclosure statements lacked justification
under the Ethics in Government Act 1978, hence, he was convicted for making false statements
violating 18 USC section 1001. He further failed to provide justification for the loan of 50,000$
he had borrowed in the name of his spouse in the year 1978 with was cosigned by a silver trader.
This amount was in exceed of the loans for the private individuals as regulated in 1981.
The defendant is the State of United States, because the fraud was committed against the
bank which is a government enterprise.
Procedural History of the case:
In March 1992, the petitioner was investigated and convicted for 45 counts of banking
fraudulent activity. The decision was held at a jury trail in the District Court of United States for

3
CASE STUDY
the District of Idaho. Later in March 1993, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 48
months of imprisonment. The petitioner shall remain in federal custody.
In March 1995, the Supreme Court had reversed the orders passed in United States vs.
Bramblett (383 US 503), Hubbard vs. United States (692 US 115). Both the cases dealt with the
matters of false statements. However, in former, the Supreme Court had broadened the limits of
section 1001 while in the later, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of 18 USC section 1001.
The petitioner relying upon the later referred case, has applied for the relief from the court.
Legal Issue:
The legal issue in the case is whether the petitioner is entitled for relief under the federal
habeas corpus statute 28 USC section 2255.
The second legal issue in the case is if the petitioner is not entitled for the above relief,
then whether the petitioner is entitled for the writ of error coram nobis.
Court’s Decision:
It was held by the court that it did not have the jurisdiction to provide the relief og habeas
corpus under 28 USC 2255, because relying upon Maleng vs. Cook (490 US 488 (1989)) and
Clifton vs. United States (386 US 995 (1967)), the court stated that the prisoner may challenge
the sentence which he is serving at the time and hence the provision of the habeas corpus is
defeated because the petitioner was serving the sentence of 1993 imposed upon him by another
federal court based on the bank fraud of 45 counts committed by him in 1992.

4
CASE STUDY
Relying upon United States vs. Morgan (346 US 502 (1954)) and United States vs. Ayala
(DC Cir 1990), the court stated that it had the jurisdiction to pass decision in relation with the
writ of error coram nobis.
Therefore, the Court decided to grant the petitioner the requested relief to set aside the
sentencing order of his 1984 conviction. However, it has no jurisdiction to pass any orders with
respect to the sentence arising from his 1983 conviction (consequent to the 1992 fraud in Idaho).
The reason for such decision is that the petitioner should seek the relief in the court which passed
the sentence. However, the writ of coram nobis was granted on the grounds of decision passed in
United States vs. Bramblett in which more emphasis was given to the meaning and scope of the
department and that the fundamental ground for the petitioner’s conviction was altered by the
decision in the Bramblett case.
Relevant Facts for the Decision:
Due to the petitioners long sentence serving, he has exhausted his general right to appeal
and therefore, the right limits itself to the only remedy of error coram nobis as his only
remaining remedy.
The relief under the writ of error coram nobis has turned the act of the petitioner as a non-
criminal act. However, the Government has not expressed its views upon the restrospective
application of the decision. The main fact which was construed by the court was that the
conviction was based on the false statements made by the petitioner to the House Committee
which attracted the attention of EIGA. The decision of United States vs. Bramblett was relied
upon by the Court to state that the decision has altered the fundamental grounds of the
petitioner’s conviction. However, due to jurisdictional issues, the petitioner can only be remedied

5
CASE STUDY
against the 1984 sentence. For further relief, he must approach the court that had passed the
decision originally.
Agree or Disagree with reasons:
I agree with the decision of the court on the ground that the change in the
substantive law should be applied retroactively because the inquiry in the criminal cases is
whether the error of law has been committed. And no man can be convicted if there has been no
error of law been committed by the person. The fundamental nature of his act has been altered
and if the decision not applied retroactively, the inherent decision of the court may lead to the
miscarriage of justice in the country. The Criminal Law Theory says “No person shall be held
guilty unless proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Thus, it can be explained that the basis of
criminal law is that every person is assumed to be innocent. And the innocence of the person
should be preserved for the effective deliverance of justice. Thus, it can be concluded that the act
which does not make the person criminal anymore, such an act cannot make the person serve the
sentence. Hence, the retroactive application of the decision of court has been agreed by me.

6
CASE STUDY
REFERENCE:
United States of America vs. George Nernon Hansen 906 f. Supp. 688 (1995)
United States vs. Bramblett (383 US 503)
Hubbard vs. United States (692 US 115)
Maleng vs. Cook (490 US 488 (1989))
Clifton vs. United States (386 US 995 (1967))
United States vs. Morgan (346 US 502 (1954))
United States vs. Ayala (DC Cir 1990)
United States Code (USC)