AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MASSACHUSETTS BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RESOLUTION
|
|
- Emmeline Tate
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MASSACHUSETTS BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RESOLUTION RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the Department of Justice to rescind the memorandum issued by Attorney General Sessions in May 2017 that directs federal prosecutors to charge and pursue the most serious (as measured by sentence length, including mandatory minimums), readily provable offense. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the United States Department of Justice to reinstate its policies permitting federal prosecutors to make individualized assessments of each case and to pursue mandatory minimum sentences and recidivist enhancements only where justified by a defendant s leadership role in the offense, use or threat of violence, significant criminal history, ties to large-scale drug trafficking organizations, gangs or cartels, or the avoidance of a gross sentencing disparity with equally or more culpable co-defendants.
2 REPORT I. Introduction On May 10, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a two-page memorandum that overhauled charging and sentencing guidelines for the Department of Justice ( Sessions Memo ). This memorandum orders federal prosecutors to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense." The memorandum identified as most serious that offense carrying the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences. It also announces that [a]ny inconsistent previous policy of the Department of Justice relating to these matters is rescinded. The Sessions Memo permits other than a strict application of the directive but only with the approval of a United States Attorney, Assistant Attorney General, or a supervisor designated by them, and any decision to vary from this policy must be documented in the file. The Sessions Memo also directs prosecutors to obtain supervisory approval to vary from recommending a sentence within the guidelines range, state reasons for doing so in the file, and disclose to the court all facts that impact the guidelines calculation or mandatory minimum sentence. It also mandates that each AUSA and Assistant Attorney General must ensure that the policy is followed and that any deviations are justified by unusual facts. The Sessions Memo effectively reverses important groundbreaking charging reforms enacted during the previous administration. The draconian charging and sentencing policies urged by Sessions are a throwback to the policies of limited prosecutorial discretion and increased mandatory minimum sentences policies that did not work
3 and are in stark contrast to the progressive trend in policies over the last 10 years. If followed, it will usher in an increased use of mandatory minimum sentences for low level and nonviolent drug offenders and a rise in the over-incarceration that has plagued the federal prison system for the past 25 years. The Sessions Memo is out of sync with ABA Criminal Justice Standards and policies and has been criticized by legal practitioners, lawmakers, and think tanks, including the Center for American Progress, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The American Civil Liberties Union, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime & Incarceration, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), The Sentencing Project, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and the New York Times Editorial Board. II. The Sessions Memo Reverses the Progress Made by Previous Attorneys General Set against the historical evolution of federal prosecutorial charging policies, the Sessions Memo is a regression in criminal justice reform. An understanding of this evolution is critical to appreciating the severity and backwards trend of the Sessions Memo. In 1980, Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti promulgated the Principles of Federal Prosecution ( Principles ). These Principles instructed federal prosecutors how they should determine which charges to bring, when to plea bargain, and which sentences they should seek in court. 1 These Principles were subsequently clarified by a series of memoranda by successive attorneys general Thornburgh (1989), Reno (1994), Ashcroft (2003), Comey (Deputy Attorney General) (2005), Holder (2010 & 2013) and, recently, Sessions (2017). A. Civiletti s Principles of Prosecution (1980) Civiletti s Principles gave birth to the position that prosecutors should charge defendants with the most serious, readily provable offense. But, those principles also provided for flexibility in plea bargaining and, in the pre-guidelines era, limited prosecutorial input at sentencing. The Principles stated that, when plea bargaining, a prosecutor could bargain for a plea to a charged offense or a lesser or related offense that bears a reasonable relationship to the nature and extent of the defendant s conduct. The Principles also provided that the prosecutor s role in sentencing was to assist the sentencing court and that sentencing in federal criminal cases is primarily the function and responsibility of the court. Prosecutors were to avoid routinely taking positions with respect to sentencing and only authorized to recommend a specific sentence when it was required by the plea agreement or justified by some public interest concern. In the limited instances when a prosecutor was authorized to recommend a sentence, the Principles instructed prosecutors to consider several factors including the defendant s background, personal circumstance, cooperation, age, mental health, physical health, 1 Principles of Federal Prosecution (U.S. Dept. of Justice, July 1980).
4 drug dependence, employment record, roots in the community, remorse or contrition, and acceptance of responsibility many of these factors were the very same factors that the Sentencing Commission declared, seven years later, were generally irrelevant in determining whether a court could depart from a guideline range in imposing sentence. 2 B. Thornburgh Memo (1989) Under the 1989 memorandum issued by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh ( Thornburgh Memo ), prosecutors were again instructed to initially charge the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses consistent with the defendant s conduct. 3 But, the Thornburgh Memo provided some additional flexibility with regard to plea bargaining. His memorandum directed prosecutors to plea bargain down from the most serious charges when the prosecutor believed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain those charges in court, when the indictment exaggerated the seriousness of the offense, when the applicable guidelines range would be unaffected, or when a supervisor approved the plea bargain for reasons set forth in the file. Those reasons could be, for instance, the U.S. Attorney s Office was overburdened, the case would be time consuming to try, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the number of cases disposed of by the office. 4 The Thornburgh Memo directed prosecutors to bargain for a sentence within the guidelines range, but it also authorized prosecutors to depart from the guidelines with supervisory approval or to recommend sentences at the low end of the guidelines range. C. Reno Memo (1993) The Thornburgh policies were clarified by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993 ( Reno Memo ). 5 In the Reno Memo, prosecutors were given additional flexibility to consider various subjective factors in determining charges and in plea-bargaining. The Reno Memo stated that a faithful and honest application of the guidelines is not incompatible with selecting charges or entering into plea agreements on the basis of an individualized assessment of the extent to which particular charges fit the specific circumstances of the case. This individualized assessment allowed prosecutors to determine when, for instance, the available charges were too severe for the facts of the particular offense conduct. Mindful of the potential consequences at sentencing, the Reno Memo also instructed prosecutors to weigh such factors as the Sentencing Guideline range yielded by the 2 Alan Vinegrad, Justice Department s New Charging, Plea Bargaining and Sentencing Policy, N.Y.L.J., June 10, 2010). 3 Memorandum from Attorney General Dick Thornburgh to all federal prosecutors on Plea Bargaining Under The Sentencing Reform Act (Mar. 13, 1989) ( Thornburgh Memo ). 4 Vinegrad, supra note 4. 5 Memorandum from Attorney General Janet Reno to Holders of U.S. Attorneys Manual, Title 9, Principles of Federal Prosecution (Oct. 12, 1993) ( Reno Memo ).
5 charge, whether the penalty yielded by such sentencing range (or potential mandatory minimum charge, if applicable) is proportional to the seriousness of the defendant s conduct, and whether the charge achieves such purposes of the criminal law as punishment, protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation. (emphasis added). Finally, in deciding whether to recommend a sentence, prosecutors were advised to consider whether that sentence was proportional to the seriousness of the defendant s conduct. D. Ashcroft Memo (2003) Attorney General John Ashcroft swiftly brought an end to much of the discretionary flexibility given to prosecutors by Reno, in his 2003 memorandum ( Ashcroft Memo ). 6 The Ashcroft Memo stated that prosecutors must (as opposed to the should of past directives) charge the most serious, readily provable offense. Exceptions to this required supervisory approval were to be included in the file, in writing. The Ashcroft Memo also limited the prosecutors discretion in plea bargaining, authorizing plea agreements to less than the most serious offense in only narrow and limited circumstances such as when the lesser plea did not affect the sentencing guidelines range or when it was required to secure a defendant s cooperation. The Ashcroft Memo dropped the flexibility given to prosecutors to strike a plea bargain based on an individualized assessment of the facts or based on the prosecutor s determination that the indictment exaggerated the seriousness of the offense. The Ashcroft Memo also took a more rigid stance toward sentencing, forbidding prosecutors from recommending a downward departure except in very limited circumstances. Moreover, prosecutors were instructed to affirmatively oppose any such request for a departure by a defendant and not stand silent. E. The Comey Memo In 2005, the Supreme Court held that mandatory sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional and, thus, the guidelines were rendered advisory. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Following Booker, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey issued a memorandum that reiterated the hardline charging and plea bargaining policies outlined in the Ashcroft Memo and that instructed prosecutors to actively seek sentences within the range established by the Sentencing Guidelines in all but extraordinary cases and that they must take all steps necessary to ensure adherence to the Sentencing Guidelines. 7 6 Memorandum from Attorney General John Ashcroft to All Federal Prosecutors on Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing (Sept. 22, 2003) ( Ashcroft Memo ). 7 Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to All Federal Prosecutors on Departmental Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing (Jan. 28, 2005) ( Comey Memo ).
6 F. The Holder Memos (2010, 2013, and 2014) In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memorandum that signaled a return to the more flexible pre-ashcroft policies ( 2010 Holder Memo ). 8 For instance, the 2010 Holder Memo states that prosecutors should ordinarily charge the most serious readily provable offense and this decision must always be made based on an individualized assessment of the factors listed in the Reno Memo. In plea bargaining, the Holder memo also returned to the pre-ashcroft prosecutorial discretion, noting that plea bargains should be informed by an individualized assessment of the specific facts and circumstances of each particular case. The 2010 Holder Memo also addressed the importance of the 18 U.S.C factors in sentencing and recognized that, in light of Booker, the guidelines were advisory. This Memo states that given the advisory nature of the guidelines, advocacy at sentencing like charging and plea agreements must also follow from an individualized assessment of the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The memo prohibited filing or dismissing charges to gain leverage in plea negotiations. Three years later, in 2013, Holder issued a second memorandum on mandatory minimum sentences ( 2013 Holder Memo ). 9. This memo "refine[d]" the DOJ's charging policy for crimes carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. He instructed that the most severe mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses be reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers, as long sentences for low level offenders have led to unduly harsh sentences that do not advance public safety, rehabilitation, or deterrence. The 2013 Holder Memo directed that such charges should not be brought for low-level drug offenders without significant ties to gangs; whose conduct did not involve violence, death or injury, the use of weapons, or involvement of minors; and where the defendant did not have a significant criminal history. Prosecutors were also instructed to limit using severe mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements under 21 U.S.C. 851 to only those defendants whose history or conduct made such increases appropriate. In 2014, the Attorney General forbade prosecutors from threatening or imposing a socalled trial penalty, by manipulating severe mandatory minimum enhancements under 21 U.S.C. 851 in plea negotiations. The need to secure a plea agreement was not, he said, an appropriate factor to be considered when determining whether to seek the recidivist enhancement which could double a five or ten-year sentence and result in a life sentence in certain cases. 8 Memorandum from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to All Federal Prosecutors on Department Policy on Charging and Sentencing (May 19, 2010) ( 2010 Holder Memo ). 9 Memorandum from the Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to The United States Attorney and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division on Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases (Aug. 12, 2013) ( 2013 Holder Memo ).
7 At the time, Attorney General Holder endorsed a fundamentally new approach to incarceration. 10 He criticized the war on drugs for its contribution to a prison population that was growing at a rate of almost 800 percent and a country that incarcerates almost a quarter of the world s prisoners, while representing only five percent of the world s population. President Obama recognized that mandatory minimum sentencing of drug offenders was a primary driver of this mass-incarceration phenomenon. 11 By avoiding charges that trigger mandatory minimums where appropriate the Holder Memo policies were intended to help mitigate the overpopulation of federal prisons that stemmed from the lengthy imprisonment of low-level, non-violent drug offenders and ensure charging practices advanced public safety and individual justice. G. The Sessions Memo As noted above, in May 2017, Attorney General Sessions issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors that signaled a return to the Ashcroft era charging and plea bargaining policies with a call for a catastrophic sentencing regime that reintroduces mandatory minimums in all cases where they may be applicable. Like the memoranda of several previous attorneys general, the Sessions Memo states that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. The Sessions Memo, however, provides for only limited exceptions to this rule, all requiring written supervisory approval. It also instructs prosecutors to charge those offenses that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences. With this memo, Sessions has limited prosecutorial discretion in charging and plea bargaining to a standard more similar to that of the Ashcroft regime. The sentencing mandate in the Sessions Memo, however, is what renders his policies truly regressive. In it, prosecutors are required to recommend a sentence within the guidelines range and to disclose to the court all facts that impact the guidelines calculation or mandatory minimum sentence. III. Impact on Criminal Justice System Reintroducing Mandatory Minimum Sentences & Over Incarceration The Sessions Memo policies will effectively force prosecutors to charge all defendants, regardless of their criminal histories or personal circumstances with the most serious crimes and to seek the lengthiest sentences available under the guidelines, including mandatory minimum sentences. These policies threaten to eradicate years of progress in criminal justice reform. 10 Attorney General Eric Holder Remarks, Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association's House of Delegates (Aug. 12, 2013), available at 11 President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President after Visit at El Reno Federal Correctional Institution, (July 16, 2015),
8 A. Longstanding ABA Policy Opposes Mandatory Minimum Sentencing The ABA has opposed mandatory minimum sentencing which it believes raises grave issues of public policy for almost 50 years All senses of fairness, due process and the rule of law require that criminal sentencing be uniform amongst similarly situated offenders and proportional to the criminal conduct. 14 Mandatory minimum sentences are inconsistent with both of these principles. For almost 25 years, the ABA has adopted resolutions and issued recommendations challenging mandatory minimum sentences as unjust and as a driving force in over incarceration: (1995) The ABA adopts a resolution calling for the equalization of the federal penalties for crack and powder cocaine. 15 ( ) The ABA establishes the Justice Kennedy Commission to further investigate the state of sentencing and corrections in the United States and to make recommendations to address the problem of over-incarceration. The Kennedy Commission issues a series of recommendations urging broad reforms to address sentencing policy, racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system, use of clemency and sentence reduction, and prison conditions and prisoner reentry. 16 The Kennedy Commission issues a recommendation urging all jurisdictions, including the federal government, to [r]epeal mandatory minimum sentence statutes See 1968 ABA Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures 2.1(c); Proceedings of the 1974 Midyear meeting of the ABA House of Delegates, Report No. 1 of the Section of Criminal Justice, at ; 1980 ABA Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (2d Ed.) (a). 13 Letter from ABA President Karen Mathis to Committee Leadership regarding the House of Representatives Hearing on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws (July 3, 2007), 3_minimumsenth_l.authcheckdam.pdf ( Mathis Letter ) Mandatory minimum sentences are also against the ABA s Standards for Criminal Justice on Sentencing. The Standards state clearly that [a] legislature should not prescribe a minimum term of total confinement for any offense. Standard (b). In addition, Standard (a) directs that [t]he sentence imposed should be no more severe than necessary to achieve the societal purpose or purposes for which it is authorized, and [t]he sentence imposed in each case should be the minimum sanction that is consistent with the gravity of the offense, the culpability of the offender, the offender s criminal history, and the personal characteristics of an individual offender that may be taken into account. 14 Mathis Letter. 15 Recommendation 129, Annual 1995 (Special Committee on the Drug Crisis). 16 Recommendation 121A, Annual 2004 (Criminal Justice Section). 17 Id.
9 (2005) The ABA expresses its concerns regarding over-reliance on imprisonment in a policy adopted in response to the Supreme Court s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), urging Congress to permit increased judicial discretion in departing from the ranges of imprisonment advised by the federal Sentencing Guidelines. 18 (2010) The ABA advocates against mandatory minimum sentencing before the Sentencing Commission, offering testimony that [s]entencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy. 19 (2011) The ABA recognizes the unwarranted severity of the federal guidelines for the sentencing of high loss economic crimes and issues a recommendation urging the Sentencing Commission to complete a comprehensive assessment of the guidelines for these offenses to ensure that they are proportional to offense severity and adequately take into consideration individual culpability and circumstances. 20 (2011) The ABA advocates for further reform of drug quantity laws through the retroactive application of the amendments to the federal guidelines enacted pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of (2011) The ABA issues a resolution urging the Sentencing Commission to complete a comprehensive assessment of the guidelines for child pornography offenses, taking into account the severity of each offense and factors pertaining to the current nature of these offenses, offenders, victims, and the role of technology in these offenses. 22 (2015) The ABA advocates for further reform of economic crime guidelines and publishes a report drafted by the ABA Criminal Justice Section Task Force on The Reform of Federal Sentencing for Economic Crimes. The report provides an entirely new model for sentencing economic crimes. 23 B. Practitioners, Lawmakers, and the Sentencing Commission Have Criticized Mandatory Minimum Sentences 18 Recommendation 301, Midyear 2005 (Criminal Justice Section). 19 See Testimony of James E. Felman on behalf of the American Bar Association before the United States Sentencing Commission, June 2, Recommendation 104C, Midyear 2011 (Criminal Justice Section). 21 See, e.g., Testimony of James E. Felman on behalf of the American Bar Association before the United States Sentencing Commission (June 1, 2011). 22 Resolution 105A, available at ckdam.pdf. 23 See Testimony of James E. Felman on behalf of the American Bar Association before the United States Sentencing Commission (March 12, 2015).
10 Criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing is widespread. In response to the Sessions Memo, Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Rand Paul (R-KY) issued a bipartisan letter questioning the Sessions policies and their likely result in counterproductive sentences that do nothing to make the public safer. 24 The letter emphasizes that mandatory minimum sentencing requires nonviolent first-time offenders to receive longer sentences than violent criminals [s]entences of this kind not only undermine respect for our legal system, but ruin families and have a corrosive effect on communities. Even before Sessions issued his memorandum, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont sent Sessions a letter pleading with him not to promote mandatory minimum sentencing. 25 The senators wrote: Changes to current drug charging policies that lead to more mandatory minimum penalties in low-level, nonviolent drug cases will not increase public safety and will only increase taxpayer spending on our bloated federal prison system We are concerned about a possible shift in the Justice Department s treatment of federal drug cases and the specter that mandatory minimum penalties may once again be used by the Justice Department on a routine basis as tools to prosecute low-level nonviolent drug offenses. 26 In a recent Washington Post analysis by former federal judge Nancy Gertner and former federal prosecutor Chiraag Bains, the authors warn: [M]andatory minimums have swelled the federal prison population and led to scandalous racial disparities. They have caused untold misery at great expense. And they have not made us safer. 27 The critical flaws of mandatory minimum sentences have been recognized by the Sentencing Commission for over 25 years. A Commission report from 1991 identified several problems including that a lack of uniform application [of mandatory minimum] creates unwarranted disparity in sentencing and the disparate application of mandatory 24 (June 7, 2017), Attorney-General-on-DOJ-Charging-and-Sentencing-Policy-FINAL-SIGNED. 25 Josh Gerstein, Senators press Sessions on drug policy changes, Politico (March 21, 2017, 2:59 PM), 26 Id. (emphasis added). 27 Nancy Gertner & Chiraag Bains, Analysis, Mandatory Minimum Sentences are Cruel and Ineffective. Sessions Wants Them Back., Wash. Post, May 15, 2017,
11 minimum sentences... appears to be related to the race of the defendant. 28 Twenty years later, a 2011 Commission report identified many of the same flaws: The certain mandatory minimum provisions apply too broadly, are set too high, or both, to warrant the prescribed minimum penalty for the full range of offenders who could be prosecuted under the particular criminal statute; Notable differences exist in the application of drug mandatory minimum penalties among various demographic groups, but these differences are largely attributable to the cumulative effects of criminal history and weapon involvement. The stacking of mandatory minimum penalties for multiple violations of section 924(c) results in excessively severe and unjust sentences in some cases. The severity of the mandatory minimum penalties for violating section 924(c), particularly the penalties for committing multiple violations of section 924(c), has produced inconsistencies in the application of the penalties among judicial districts. [M]andatory minimum penalties for certain child pornography offenses and the resulting guidelines sentencing ranges may be excessively severe and as a result are being applied inconsistently. 29 The Department of Justice recently released a report entitled Review of the Department s Implementation of Prosecution and Sentencing Reform Principles under the Smart on Crime Initiative 30. The report found that between 2010 and 2015, sentencing outcomes in drug cases had shifted in a manner that was consistent with the first two principles of Smart on Crime [ prioritize prosecutions to focus on most serious cases and reform sentencing to eliminate unfair disparities and reduce overburdened prisons ]. This was reflected by significantly fewer mandatory minimum sentences being imposed in drug cases nationwide, as well as a decrease in mandatory minimum sentences for those defendants who might otherwise have received such a sentence United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System at ii-iv (1991) ( USSC Special Report ). 29 United States Sentencing Commission, 2011 Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System, Conclusions and Recommendations (2011), 30 United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. June Id.
12 C. Mandatory Minimums Lead to Disparate Sentencing Mandatory minimums result in disparate sentences for similarly situated offenders. Drug offenses, which contribute to a large proportion of mandatory minimum sentences, can give rise to arbitrary, severe punishments. 32 Even minor differences in drug quantities can lead to similar offenses where only some trigger mandatory minimums, leading to a resulting cliff effect between similarly situated offenders. 33 For instance, someone arrested with 0.9 gram of LSD will not likely spend much time incarcerated, while an arrest for one gram will trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of five years behind bars. Application of mandatory minimum sentencing is also more harsh for one specific racial community African Americans. The Commission s 2011 Report to Congress explains that Blacks account for 30.3 percent of drug offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty but they account for a higher percentage of drug offenders who receive a mandatory minimum at sentencing 40.4 percent. 34 The Commission states that this disparate application is largely attributable to the cumulative effects of criminal history and weapon involvement. 35 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides one example in which the race-based disparity in sentencing that is created by mandatory-minimum sentencing has been documented. In 2009, the Massachusetts Bar Association concluded that in that state, where the racial minority composition of the state population was determined to be 20%, approximately 75% of mandatory minimum offenders were determined to be racial minority members. 36 This was despite evidence that -- at this same time-frame -- the national drug use rates among white, black and Latino racial groups was nearly identical. 37 The 2009 Massachusetts Bar Association study concluded, citing a review conducted under the auspices of the Boston University School of Public Health, that 74.6% of defendants convicted of mandatory drug distribution offenses were racial/ethnic 32 Paul Larkin & Evan Bernick, Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms, Heritage Foundation (Feb. 10, 2014), 33 Id. (citing Stephen J. Schulhofer, Rethinking Mandatory Minimums, 28 Wake Forest L. Rev. 199, 213 (1993)). 34 United States Sentencing Commission, 2011 Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System, Conclusions and Recommendations (2011), available at 35 Id. 36 Report of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, Survey of Sentencing Practices FY 2006, January 2007, p.53, available at 37 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Illicit Drug Use, By Race/Ethnicity in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties: , June 21, 2007.
13 minorities and only 25.4% of defendant s convicted of such mandatory minimum offenses were white. 38 The gross, race-based, disparate impact of mandatory minimum sentencing policy is long-recognized as a national phenomenon. As far back as in 1991, the U.S. Sentencing Commission s Special Report to Congress on mandatory minimum sentences observed the disparate application of mandatory minimum sentences in that whites are more likely than non-whites to be sentenced below the applicable mandatory minimum. 39 Indeed, a 2013 Yale study found that prosecutors file mandatory minimums twice as often against black men as against comparable white men. Moreover, for those concerned about mass incarceration of black men, expanding mandatory minimums would be counterproductive. 40 D. Mandatory Minimums Lead to Unduly Harsh Sentences The research on mandatory minimum sentences is replete with stories of unduly harsh sentences for drug offenses. In one case, a financially desperate single mother with four children and zero criminal history was paid $100 by a stranger to mail a package that, unbeknownst to her, contained 232 grams of crack cocaine. For that single act, she was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment even though the sentencing judge believed that sentence was completely unjust and irrational. 41 Mandatory minimum sentences also ignore all the circumstances surrounding the conduct and blind the court to all factors outside of the criminal act itself courts cannot consider the defendant s role in the offense, the defendant s level of culpability, nor his or her acceptance of responsibility. E. Mandatory Minimums Lead to Over Incarceration 38 The Failure of the War on Drugs: Charting a New Course for the Commonwealth, Report of the Massachusetts Bar Association Drug Policy Task Force, 2009, p & n.55, available at ort.pdf. 39 U.S. Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System, August 1991, Summary, pp. ii, available at 40 Sonja B. Starr & M. Marit Rehavi, Mandatory Sentencing and Racial Disparity: Assessing the Role of Prosecutors and the Effects of Booker, Yale Law Review, Vol. 123 (Oct 2013) (finding that prosecutors file mandatory minimums twice as often against black men as against comparable white men. Moreover, for those concerned about mass incarceration of black men, expanding mandatory minimums would be counterproductive. ). 41 Id. (citing Steven Nauman, Brown v. Plata; Renewing the Call to End Mandatory Sentencing, 65 Fla. L. Rev. 855, (2013)).
14 Between 1980 and 2013, the combined federal, state, and local prison populations increased at 340% from 503,600 to 2,200,300 individuals. In this period, the federal population grew the most, 786% from 24,363 to 215,866 individuals. 42 The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at a cost of more than $80 billion a year. Mandatory minimums have been a driving force in the mass incarceration that plagues the United States, placing an enormous burden on taxpayers and having dire social consequences. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates explains in a recent Washington Post article that the Holder policies enabled prosecutors to focus limited federal resources on cases that had the greatest impact on our communities the most dangerous defendants and most complex cases. 43 She emphasizes that the resources spent on imprisoning low-level nonviolent offenders is a dollar we don t have to investigate and prosecute serious threats, from child predators to terrorists. 44 Packing our prison system with low-level nonviolent offenders is costly and it does nothing to improve public safety. 42 William A. Galston & Elizabeth McElvein, Addressing mass incarceration with evidence-based reform, Brookings Inst. (Apr. 2016), 43 Sally Yates, Opinion, Making America scared again won t make us safer, Wash. Post (June 23, 2017). 44 Id.
15 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we urge the House of Delegates to call upon the Department of Justice to rescind Attorney General Sessions memorandum that limit prosecutorial discretion and increased mandatory minimum sentences. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey N. Catalano President, Massachusetts Bar Association August 2017
16 GENERAL INFORMATION FORM Submitting Entity: Massachusetts Bar Association, ABA Criminal Justice Section Submitted By: Jeffrey N. Catalano (MA Bar), Matthew Redle, Chair (ABA Criminal Justice Section) 1. Summary of Resolution(s). This Resolution implores for the Department of Justice to revoke Attorney General Sessions memorandum from May 2017 that orders prosecutors to pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. The guidelines retreats from the significant reform implemented during the previous administration in favor of advancing the outdated limited prosecutorial discretion and mandatory minimum sentencing policies that will only exacerbate the federal prison system s over-incarceration problem. Ultimately, the ABA urges the Department of Justice to restore prosecutorial discretion in choosing the charges s/he wishes to pursue and reserve mandatory minimum sentencing to only the most serious drug traffickers and prohibit its use to secure plea agreements. 2. Approval by Submitting Entity. This resolution was passed by Massachusetts Bar Association in July 2017 and by the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Council in July Has this or a similar resolution been submitted to the House or Board previously? No. 4. What existing Association policies are relevant to this Resolution and how would they be affected by its adoption? As the report outlines, this resolution is consistent with previous ABA policy on mandatory minimums, prosecutorial discretion, and criminal justice charging decisions. 5. If this is a late report, what urgency exists which requires action at this meeting of the House? The Sessions Memo (the subject of this resolution) was released shortly before the initial filing deadline for resolutions and reports. Because the House of Delegates will not meet again until February 2018, this resolution is being submitted as a late resolution and report to allow the ABA to speak in a timely and relevant fashion and to join the large number of organizations and individuals who have spoken out against this memo.
17 6. Status of Legislation. (If applicable) N/A 7. Brief explanation regarding plans for implementation of the policy, if adopted by the House of Delegates. This resolution will be used in lobbying efforts, amicus briefs, and public awareness campaigns. 8. Cost to the Association. (Both direct and indirect costs) None. 9. Disclosure of Interest. (If applicable) N/A. 10. Referrals. Concurrent with the filing of this resolution and Report with the House of Delegates, the Criminal Justice Section is sending the resolution and report to the following entities and/or interested groups: Commission on Veteran s Legal Services Legal Aid & Indigent Defense Commission on Disability Rights Special Committee on Hispanic Legal Rights & Responsibilities Commission on Homelessness and Poverty Center for Human Rights Commission on Immigration Racial & Ethnic Diversity Racial & Ethnic Justice Youth at Risk Young Lawyer s Division Civil Rights and Social Justice Government and Public Sector Lawyers International Law Federal Trial Judges State Trial Judges Law Practice Division Science & Technology Health Law Litigation
18 11. Contact Name and Address Information. (Prior to the meeting. Please include name, address, telephone number and address) Rebecca Brodey Cozen O Connor th Street NW Washington, D.C T: (202) rbrodey@cozen.com James E. Felman Kynes, Markman & Felman 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1300 Tampa, FL T: (813) jfelman@kmf-law.com Kevin J. Curtin 200 Trade Center, 3 rd floor Woburn, MA T: (508) kevinjcurtin@icloud.com Sara Elizabeth Dill American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C T: (202) sara.dill@americanbar.org 12. Contact Name and Address Information. (Who will present the report to the House? Please include name, address, telephone number, cell phone number and address.) Stephen Saltzburg 2000 H Street, NW Washington, D. C T: E: ssaltz@law.gwu.edu Neal Sonnett 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2600 Miami, Florida T: Cell: E: nrslaw@sonnett.com
19 1. Summary of the Resolution EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution implores for the Department of Justice to revoke Attorney General Sessions memorandum from May 2017 that orders prosecutors to pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. The guidelines retreats from the significant reform implemented during the previous administration in favor of advancing the outdated limited prosecutorial discretion and mandatory minimum sentencing policies that will only exacerbate the federal prison system s over-incarceration problem. Ultimately, the ABA urges the Department of Justice to restore prosecutorial discretion in choosing the charges s/he wishes to pursue and reserve mandatory minimum sentencing to only the most serious drug traffickers and prohibit its use to secure plea agreements. 2. Summary of the Issue that the Resolution Addresses This Resolution addresses the new policies of Attorney General Sessions and the Department of Justice. 3. Please Explain How the Proposed Policy Position Will Address the Issue This Resolution calls upon the Department of Justice to re-examine their new policies, and can be used in lobbying efforts, amicus briefs, and public awareness campaigns. 4. Summary of Minority Views or Opposition Internal and/or External to the ABA Which Have Been Identified. None.
Washington, D.C Washington, D.C
July 3, 2007 The Honorable Bobby Scott The Honorable Randy Forbes Chair Ranking Member Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and Homeland Security U.S.
More informationDisparate Impact of Federal Mandatory Minimums on Minority Communities in the United States
Disparate Impact of Federal Mandatory Minimums on Minority Communities in the United States Families Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 and National Council of
More informationHearing on Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Written Statement of Antonio M. Ginatta Advocacy Director, US Program Human Rights Watch to United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Mandatory
More informationFederal Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Policy History, Present Status and Future Reforms
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences Policy History, Present Status and Future Reforms Ann Hilton Criminal Justice 1010 Spring Semester 2014 Federal mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions,
More informationCase 1:01-cv JG Document 54 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 283
Case 1:01-cv-01017-JG Document 54 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 283 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION FRANCOIS HOLLOWAY, Petitioner, ORDER - versus
More informationWritten Statement of Jim E. Lavine, NACDL President. on behalf of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS
Written Statement of Jim E. Lavine, NACDL President on behalf of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS before the United States Sentencing Commission Re: Retroactivity of Fair Sentencing
More informationTestimony of JAMES E. FELMAN. on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. for the hearing on
Testimony of JAMES E. FELMAN on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION before the UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION for the hearing on PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES regarding
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. xxxxx SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CASE NO. xxxxx RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant. / SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The defendant, Rafael
More informationTESTIMONY MARGARET COLGATE LOVE. on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. before the JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. of the
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET COLGATE LOVE on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION before the JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY of the MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT on the subject of Alternative Sentencing and
More information20 Questions for Delaware Attorney General Candidates
20 Questions for Delaware Attorney General Candidates CANDIDATE: CHRIS JOHNSON (D) The Coalition for Smart Justice is committed to cutting the number of prisoners in Delaware in half and eliminating racial
More informationTHE IMPORTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT: MAKING THE MOST OF RESENTENCING UNDER
THE IMPORTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT: MAKING THE MOST OF RESENTENCING UNDER THE AMENDED CRACK COCAINE GUIDELINES I. Background Patricia Warth Co-Director, Justice Strategies On December 10, 2007,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cr-00272-EMK Document 264 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No.: 09-CR-272-02 v. ) Judge Edwin
More informationTestimony of Marc Mauer Executive Director The Sentencing Project
Testimony of Marc Mauer Executive Director The Sentencing Project Before the United States Sentencing Commission Regarding Retroactivity of Crack Cocaine Guidelines Amendment June 1, 2011 Thank you for
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES FEBRUARY 11, 2013 RESOLUTION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES FEBRUARY 11, 2013 RESOLUTION RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to aid
More informationFact Sheet: Racial Fairness in the Advisory Guidelines System
Fact Sheet: Racial Fairness in the Advisory Guidelines System Introduction In recent testimony before Congress, the Sentencing Commission called for legislation that would require that the guidelines and
More information20 Questions for Delaware Attorney General Candidates
20 Questions for Delaware Attorney General Candidates CANDIDATE: KATHY JENNINGS (D) The Coalition for Smart Justice is committed to cutting the number of prisoners in Delaware in half and eliminating racial
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, territorial
More informationThe Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 S. 619
The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 S. 619 Written Statement of Shon Hopwood 1 Gates Public Service Law Scholar University of Washington School of Law Senators Leahy and Paul, and the entire Senate Judiciary
More informationJurisdiction Profile: Minnesota
1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION Q. A. What year was the commission established? Has the commission essentially retained its original form or has it changed substantially or been abolished? The Commission
More informationOverview of Federal Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2014
Overview of Federal Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2014 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION United States Sentencing Commission One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 www.ussc.gov Patti B. Saris Chair
More informationPresumptively Unreasonable: Using the Sentencing Commission s Words to Attack the Advisory Guidelines. By Anne E. Blanchard and Kristen Gartman Rogers
Presumptively Unreasonable: Using the Sentencing Commission s Words to Attack the Advisory Guidelines By Anne E. Blanchard and Kristen Gartman Rogers As Booker s impact begins to reverberate throughout
More information437 Russell Senate Office Building 124 Russell Senate Office Building. Washington, DC Washington, DC 20510
July 17, 2013 The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Rand Paul 437 Russell Senate Office Building 124 Russell Senate Office Building United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Washington,
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationBy Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. COONS):
By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. COONS): S. 502. A bill to focus limited Federal resources on the most serious offenders;
More informationMANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
An Overview of MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES in the FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM United States Sentencing Commission July 2017 Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice
More informationFederal Marijuana Offenses: Vaporizing the Sentencing Guidelines. By: Joseph A. Bondy, Esq.
Federal Marijuana Offenses: Vaporizing the Sentencing Guidelines 1 By: Joseph A. Bondy, Esq. I. Introduction Even though as of this writing twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-11-2006 USA v. Severino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 05-3695 Follow this and additional
More informationPART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS. Introductory Commentary
5H1.1 PART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Introductory Commentary The following policy statements address the relevance of certain offender characteristics to the determination of whether a sentence
More informationExpansion of the Federal Safety Valve for Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Issue Brief l January 2018 FreedomWorks.org Expansion of the Federal Safety Valve for Mandatory Minimum Sentences Jason Pye and Sarah Anderson The Sentencing Reform Act 1 and the Sentencing Reform and
More informationA CITIZEN S GUIDE TO STRUCTURED SENTENCING
A CITIZEN S GUIDE TO STRUCTURED SENTENCING (Revised 2012) PREPARED BY: THE NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION P.O. Box 2448 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 phone 919-890-1470 fax 919-890-1933
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiffs CRIMINAL DOCKET CR-09-351 BRIAN DUNN V. HON. RICHARD P. CONABOY Defendant SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
More informationU.S. Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Retroactivity Data Report Fair Sentencing Act
U.S. Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Retroactivity Data Report Fair Sentencing Act July 2013 Data Introduction As part of its ongoing mission, the United States Sentencing Commission provides Congress,
More informationSO WHAT S THE DIFFERENCE ANYWAY? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VARIANCES AND DEPARTURES
SO WHAT S THE DIFFERENCE ANYWAY? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VARIANCES AND DEPARTURES CJA Panel Training December 15, 2017 Jackson, MS Abby Brumley, Assistant Federal Defender U.S. V. BOOKER, 135 S. CT. 738
More informationIncarcerated America Human Rights Watch Backgrounder April 2003
Incarcerated America Human Rights Watch Backgrounder April 03 According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United
More informationMarch 12, Request for comment on criteria for sentence reduction under USSG 1B1.13. Dear Judge Hinojosa:
March 12, 2007 Honorable Ricardo H. Hinojosa Chair United States Sentencing Commission One Columbus Circle, N.E. Suite 2-500, South Lobby Washington, D.C. 20002-8002 Re: Request for comment on criteria
More informationSUBCHAPTER F PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING
SUBCHAPTER F PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING Sec. 2151. Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (Repealed). 2151.1. Definitions. 2151.2. Commission. 2152. Composition of commission. 2153. Powers and
More informationCommittee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143
Committee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 WENDY S. WAYNE TEL: (617) 623-0591 DIRECTOR FAX: (617) 623-0936 JEANETTE
More informationChapter 6 Sentencing and Corrections
Chapter 6 Sentencing and Corrections Chapter Objectives Describe the different philosophies of punishment (goals of sentencing). Understand the sentencing process from plea bargaining to conviction. Describe
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationSentencing Chronic Offenders
2 Sentencing Chronic Offenders SUMMARY Generally, the sanctions received by a convicted felon increase with the severity of the crime committed and the offender s criminal history. But because Minnesota
More informationDepartment of Corrections
Agency 44 Department of Corrections Articles 44-5. INMATE MANAGEMENT. 44-6. GOOD TIME CREDITS AND SENTENCE COMPUTATION. 44-9. PAROLE, POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, AND HOUSE ARREST. 44-11. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
KATHLEEN JENNINGS ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400 CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500 FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
More informationA CITIZEN S GUIDE TO STRUCTURED SENTENCING
A CITIZEN S GUIDE TO STRUCTURED SENTENCING (Revised 2010) PREPARED BY: THE NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION P.O. Box 2472 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 phone 919-890-1470 fax 919-890-1933
More information(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
18 U.S.C. 3553 : Imposition of a sentence (a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence. - The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes
More informationMens Rea Reform Act of 2015 (S. 2298), and Criminal Code Improvement Act of 2015 (H.R. 4002)
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL COURTS IRA M. FEINBERG CHAIR 875 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10028 Phone: (212) 918-3509 Ira.feinberg@hoganlovells.com August 16, 2016 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman United
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Bill Smith, Esquire Attorney for John Doe. Meredith Patti, Esquire Mary Cate Rush, Chief Statistician. DATE: August 5, 2014
M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM : Bill Smith, Esquire Attorney for John Doe Meredith Patti, Esquire Mary Cate Rush, Chief Statistician DATE: SUBJECT: DOE - DATA ANALYSIS Title 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6) directs
More informationNEGOTIATING FEDERAL PLEA AGREEMENTS IN THE POST-BOOKER WORLD: SAME AS IT EVER WAS 1. By Barry Boss & Matthew Brown
NEGOTIATING FEDERAL PLEA AGREEMENTS IN THE POST-BOOKER WORLD: SAME AS IT EVER WAS 1 By Barry Boss & Matthew Brown And you may ask yourself, how do I work this? Talking Heads, Once in a Lifetime In January
More informationHow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Abridged Overview
How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Abridged Overview Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law July 2, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41697 Summary Sentencing
More informationMassachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018)
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018) DISCLAIMER: This document is a Robina Institute transcription of statutory contents. It is not an authoritative
More informationJURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Presentation provided by the Tonya Krause-Phelan and Mike Dunn, Associate Professors, Thomas M. Cooley Law School WAIVER In Michigan, there
More informationJUVENILE MATTERS Attorney General Executive Directive Concerning the Handling of Juvenile Matters by Police and Prosecutors
JUVENILE MATTERS Attorney General Executive Directive Concerning the Handling of Juvenile Matters by Police and Prosecutors Issued October 1990 The subject-matter of this Executive Directive was carefully
More informationSentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums: Mixing Apples and Oranges
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1992 Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums: Mixing Apples and Oranges William W. Schwarzer
More informationMaking Justice Work. Factsheet: Mandatory Sentencing
Making Justice Work Factsheet: Mandatory Sentencing What is mandatory sentencing? Normally the court has discretion to decide what sentence it will impose on a person convicted of a criminal offence. This
More informationCase 1:18-cr ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : : : : : : :
Case 118-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. W. SAMUEL PATTEN, Defendant. Criminal No. 18-260 (ABJ)
More informationSeptember 17, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 17, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Honorable Richard J. Dick Durbin United States Senate 711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1304 The Honorable Michael S. Mike Lee United States
More informationCase Law Summary: Minnesota
This summary of Minnesota appellate case law addresses four topics: the availability of and general standards for appellate review, standards and allowable grounds for departure, constitutional requirements
More informationREASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1
REASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1 In 1998, a Waverly, Virginia police officer, Allen Gibson, was murdered during a drug deal gone wrong. After some urging by his defense attorney and the State s threats to
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, LEACH, HUGHES, SCHWANK, YUDICHAK, BROWNE AND STREET, MARCH 12, 2018 AN ACT
PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS., PRINTER'S NO. 10 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 01 INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, LEACH, HUGHES, SCHWANK, YUDICHAK, BROWNE AND STREET, MARCH, 01 AS AMENDED
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER OF FORFEITURE OF PUBLIC OFFICE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER OF FORFEITURE OF PUBLIC OFFICE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(e) I. Introduction and Overview Public employees convicted of certain
More informationFEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 51 SLEEPER STREET, 5TH FLOOR BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 51 SLEEPER STREET, 5TH FLOOR BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 December 3, 2012 TELEPHONE: 617-223-8061 FAX: 617-223-8080 Honorable Patti B. Saris Chair
More informationHuman Rights Watch comments on US Sentencing Commission consideration of retroactivity of proposed amendments to the Drug Quantity Table in the US
Human Rights Watch comments on US Sentencing Commission consideration of retroactivity of proposed amendments to the Drug Quantity Table in the US federal sentencing guidelines July 7, 2014 Human Rights
More informationELECTION 2018 VERMONT STATE S ATTORNEY CANDIDATE SURVEY
Dear Candidate, ELECTION 2018 VERMONT STATE S ATTORNEY CANDIDATE SURVEY On behalf of the statewide membership of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, we request your response to the enclosed
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RESOLUTION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RESOLUTION 1 2 3 4 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial and tribal legislatures
More informationU.S. Sentencing Commission 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment Retroactivity Data Report
U.S. Sentencing Commission 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment Retroactivity Data Report October 2017 Introduction As part of its ongoing mission, the United States Sentencing Commission provides Congress,
More informationINTRODUCTION BACKGROUND RESEARCH QUESTION
Disparity under Structured Sentencing in North Carolina: Do similarly situated offenders receive different outcomes based on legally irrelevant factors? by Michelle L. Hall A paper submitted to the faculty
More informationONE YEAR LATER NEW YORK S EXPERIENCE WITH DRUG LAW REFORM
199 WATER STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10038 TEL: 212-577-3300 FAX: 212-509-8481 www.legal-aid.org Peter v.z. Cobb President Steven Banks Attorney-in-Chief Seymour James Attorney-in-Charge Criminal Defense Division
More informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationIdaho Prisons. Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy Brief. October 2018
Persons per 100,000 Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy Brief Idaho Prisons October 2018 Idaho s prisons are an essential part of our state s public safety infrastructure and together with other criminal justice
More informationDrug Offences Definitive Guideline
Drug Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Drug Offences only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition by bringing into
More informationREDUCING RECIDIVISM STATES DELIVER RESULTS
REDUCING RECIDIVISM STATES DELIVER RESULTS JUNE 2017 Efforts to reduce recidivism are grounded in the ability STATES HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS BRIEF to accurately and consistently collect and analyze various
More informationReport on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing
Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing Patti B. Saris Chair William B. Carr, Jr. Vice Chair Ketanji B. Jackson Vice Chair Ricardo H. Hinojosa Commissioner Beryl
More informationCase: 1:12-cr Document #: 133 Filed: 09/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:733
Case: 1:12-cr-00658 Document #: 133 Filed: 09/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:733 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs.
More informationSentencing Reform, the Federal Criminal Justice System,and Judicial and Prosecutorial Discretion
Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 18 Issue 2 Symposium on Criminal Punishment Article 3 1-1-2012 Sentencing Reform, the Federal Criminal Justice System,and Judicial and Prosecutorial
More information2003 WL Federal Sentencing Reporter Volume 15, Number 5
2003 WL 22208857 Federal Sentencing Reporter Volume 15, Number 5 MEMORANDUM FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT SETTING FORTH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT S SENTENCING POLICIES JULY 28, 2003 June 1, 2003 *375 Editor
More informationLEGAL MEMORANDUM. Is justice best served by having legislatures assign fixed penalties
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 114 Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms Evan Bernick and Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Abstract Mandatory minimum sentences are the product
More informationWritten Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee
Written Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences Wednesday, September
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT MICHAEL HARRY, Defendant. No. CR17-1017-LTS SENTENCING OPINION AND
More informationLand of the Free: Prison Reform Following the War on Drugs
Land of the Free: Prison Reform Following the War on Drugs Megan Tingley America s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to
More informationON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (The Honorable Robert J. Conrad, District Judge)
CASE NO.: 14-4586 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, versus CORVAIN COOPER Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
More informationUnited States Sentencing Guideline 2010 Amendments
United States Sentencing Guideline 2010 Amendments FY 2009 Within Range Sentences National 56.8% (59.4 FY 2008) 4th Circuit 62.8% (66.3 FY 2008) E.D.N.C. 56.3% (56.2% FY 2008) Average Length of Prison
More informationMandatory Minimum Sentences Created, Increased, or Expanded By Congress,
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Number of Sentences Created 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mandatory Minimum
More informationTHE STATE HOUSE TO PRISON PIPELINE A review of criminal justice policy in the Nebraska Legislature
THE STATE HOUSE TO PRISON PIPELINE A review of criminal justice policy in the Nebraska Legislature 2006-2016 By Anna Holmquist, ACLU Pre-Law Intern with Spike Eickholt INTRODUCTION The ACLU of Nebraska
More informationOFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Criminal Cases Decided Between September 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011 and Granted Review for
More informationFEDERAL DEFENDERS OF MONTANA Great Falls, Montana
Great Falls, Montana TO: FROM: All CJA Panel Attorneys Tony Gallagher DATE: January 13, 2005 RE: Booker and Fanfan On January 12, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Freddie
More informationECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON INCARCERATION AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON INCARCERATION AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM April 2016 Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 7 I. Defining the Landscape: Current Criminal Justice Policies and Historical
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 1:08-cr-00523-PAB Document 45 Filed 10/13/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 AO 245B (Rev. 09/08) Judgment in a Criminal Case Sheet 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. District of
More informationCHAPTER FIFTEEN SENTENCING OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDERS
CHAPTER FIFTEEN SENTENCING OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDERS Author: LILLIAN ARTZ 1 Criminologist Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law University of Cape Town 1. INTRODUCTION Recent case law relating to rape
More informationINTRODUCTION TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES Where to find the Guidelines ONLINE at www.ussc.gov/guidelines In print from Westlaw Chapter Organization Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Offense Conduct Chapter
More informationWhen Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements
When Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements Alan DuBois Senior Appellate Attorney Federal Public Defender-Eastern District of North
More informationF4 & F5 Offender Placement
September 12, 2012 Christina Madriguera Esq., Legislative Liaison/Analyst Seeking Sponsor F4 & F5 Offender Placement PROPOSED TITLE INFORMATION To modify language in Ohio Revised Code 2929.13(B)(1)(a),
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
17 70 cr United States v. Hoskins In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2017 Argued: January 9, 2018 Decided: September 26, 2018 Docket No. 17 70 cr UNITED STATES OF
More informationA SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE MATH PROBLEM PRODUCED BY THE NEW CRACK-TO-MARIJUANA TABLE IN CASES INVOLVING RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE CRACK AMENDMENT
A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE MATH PROBLEM PRODUCED BY THE NEW CRACK-TO-MARIJUANA TABLE IN CASES INVOLVING RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE CRACK AMENDMENT Amy Baron-Evans I. Overview In four reports to Congress,
More informationWASHINGTON COALITION OF MINORITY LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
WASHINGTON COALITION OF MINORITY LEGAL PROFESSIONALS Educating the Public to Improve the Justice System for Minority Communities Dear Candidate, October 1, 2018 Thank you for running for Prosecuting Attorney.
More information#No215Jail & #No215Bail Our Goal: End Cash Bail in Philadelphia
#No215Jail & #No215Bail Our Goal: End Cash Bail in Philadelphia Every day, there are thousands of people held in Philadelphia s jails solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release. If City
More informationTestimony of Kemba Smith before the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. March 3, 2006
Testimony of Kemba Smith before the Inter American Commission on Human Rights March 3, 2006 Members of the Commission, my name is Kemba Smith, and only a little over five years ago, I was identified by
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2008 USA v. Bonner Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3763 Follow this and additional
More informationll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION
ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION What year was the commission established? Has the commission essentially retained its original form, or has it changed substantially or been abolished? The Commission was
More informationUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, Shawn PICKERING, Defendant-Appellee. No United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shawn PICKERING, Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5464. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 25, 1999. Appeal from the United States District
More informationWRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Hearing on Consideration of Antitrust Criminal Remedies November 3, 2005 Madam Chair, Commissioners,
More informationJurisdiction Profile: Alabama
1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION Q. What year was the commission established? Has the commission essentially retained its original form or has it changed substantially or been abolished? The Alabama Legislature
More information