We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SHUT UP, YOUR HONOR

You’d think that when a federal judge tells you that a plea offer stinks, you could take that to the bank.

That didn’t happen for Seneca Harrison. After he was charged with an 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) felon-in-possession, the government offered him a 70-87 month plea deal. At Seneca’s change of plea hearing, the judge – upon hearing the deal – threw the Assistant United States Attorney out of the courtroom, and then told Seneca the federal (as opposed to the state) system “sucks” and is “really harsh.” The judge advised Seneca he’d get a better deal going to trial.

So Seneca did what the judge suggested… and he got hammered. Because going to trial took away his Guidelines acceptance-of-responsibility points, his sentencing range increased. He was sentenced to 92 months.

Last week, the 10th Circuit vacated the sentence and sent the case to a different judge for resentencing. Everyone agreed that the judge’s comments on the plea violated F.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). And Seneca was prejudiced by it, because there was a reasonable probability he would have taken the government deal if the court had kept its mouth shut. To be sure, the district court’s comments were “inappropriate. Commenting on the sentencing practices of another judge and making disparaging remarks about the federal system harms the public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

United States v. Harrison, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28621 (10th Cir Sept. 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root