All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Does Biden Overpromise, Underdeliver on Marijuana Reform? – Update for March 11, 2024

Leave a comment

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

BIDEN PROMISES ON MARIJUANA HAVE SKEPTICS

marijuana221111Marijuana reform got some billing in President Biden’s State of the Union (SOTU) speech last Thursday, as he highlighted (and perhaps overstated) his Administration’s actions toward pot reform.

Biden noted that he has “direct[ed] my Cabinet to review the federal classification of marijuana” – an action begun in October 2022 and to be completed by the end of this year – and he claimed he is “expunging thousands of convictions for the mere possession because no one should be jailed for simply using or having it on their record.”

The sweep of Biden’s pardons is debatable. “While the pardons have symbolically forgiven convictions, they did not eliminate criminal records entirely,” the Green Mountain Report observed last week. “Additionally, these pardons have not impacted individuals currently serving sentences in federal prisons for marijuana-related offenses that exceed simple possession.”

“Biden made two promises on marijuana reform on the 2020 campaign trail—to decriminalize marijuana use and expunge records—and he has failed to deliver either,” Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a Friday response the SOTU. “Biden’s pardons haven’t released anyone from prison or expunged anyone’s records.”

potscooby180713Reason magazine noted last week that “in 1972, the same year that Biden was elected to his first term in the US Senate, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse recommended decriminalization of marijuana possession for personal use. It also recommended that “casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration, no longer be an offense.”

Fifty-two years later, we’re getting there but slowly. Federal marijuana trafficking cases declined yet again in 2023 as more states legalized the leaf, according to the USSC 2023 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, published last Tuesday. This continues a decade-long trend of pot prosecutions “dropping precipitously amid the state-level reform push and shifting federal enforcement priorities,” Reason said. In 2013, the Feds reported 5,000 cannabis-related prosecutions. Last year, there were under 800.

Last week, The Hill reported on a Pew Research Center finding that more than half of Americans live in a state where recreational marijuana is legal. A full 74% of Americans live in a state where marijuana is legal for medical use.

mcconnell180219Also last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced he is stepping down from his leadership post in November. McConnell has earned a reputation as an anti-drug senator, despite his work pushing the First Step Act through the Senate and the legalization of hemp in the 2018 farm bill. He has been firmly opposed to even modest marijuana reform. Because the minority leader will run the Senate if his party flips the 51-49 chamber to a Republican majority, the person occupying that position is a hair’s breadth from being able to control what drug reform bills the Senate will take up.

Marijuana Moment, Biden Promotes Marijuana Reform In State (March 7, 2024)

Green Market Report, Biden touts cannabis policy changes in State of the Union (March 8, 2024)

Drug Policy Alliance, The Drug Policy Alliance Responds To The 2024 State Of The Union Address (March 8, 2024)

Reason, Biden’s Inaccurate and Inadequate Lip Service to Marijuana Reform Ignores Today’s Central Cannabis Issue (March 8, 2024)

US Sentencing Commission, 2023 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (March 5, 2024

The Hill, 79% of Americans live in a county with legal cannabis dispensary: report (March 4, 2024)

Marijuana Moment, Is Mitch McConnell Stepping Down Good For Marijuana Reform? It Depends Who Replaces Him (March 5, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

“Their Verdict Didn’t Matter”: Taming the ‘Acquitted Conduct’ Sentencing Monster – Update for March 8, 2024

Leave a comment

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

ACQUITTED CONDUCT ISSUE ARRIVES WITH A LOT OF BAGGAGE

The U.S. Sentencing Commission completed two days of hearings yesterday on what, if anything, it should do to rein in “acquitted conduct” sentencing, the Guidelines- and Supreme Court-sanctioned practice of relying on evidence that a defendant committed a crime even if a jury had found him or her not guilty of that offense.

acquitted240308Jessie Ailsworth knows what that feels like. During this week’s hearings, he told the Commission he felt relieved when he heard the jury return 28 “not guilty” verdicts in his 1996 trial for crack cocaine distribution. But Jessie said “fairness went out the window” when he got hammered with 30 years for the seven counts on which he was found guilty.

The judge based Jessie’s sentence on all of the counts in the indictment, including the 28 acquitted counts.

“I was very angry for a long time,” Jessie told the Commission. “I felt like the system failed me. I really believe that the jury did their best. They took their time, wrote notes, asked questions, and reached their verdicts. But, when I was sentenced, the court sent me to prison based on the jury’s acquittals. I felt like the system didn’t just fail me, it also failed my jury. We all knew what the jury was trying to do, and when I was sentenced, I wondered why we had even spent all those days with the jury, if at the end of it all, their verdict didn’t matter.”

Jessie was one of 15 witnesses testifying over the two days. Others included judges, probation officers and advocates. Judge Deborah Cook of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals drew a distinction between “the important distinction in the proof necessary for convicting versus sentencing… That is, so long as the defendant receives a sentence at or below the statutory maximum set by the jury’s verdict, the district court does not abridge [a] defendant’s right to jury by looking to other facts, including acquitted conduct, when sentencing within that statutory range.”

Proof140424Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Policy and the Law blog yesterday, explained how the question is stickier than either Jessie or Judge Cook might think. Prof Berman wrote that “rights directed at a balanced and thorough process — in other words, rights that support accuracy concerns or that tend to put the prosecution and defense on a more even playing field — do apply at sentencing. Rights that offer the defendant special protections — such as those that automatically resolve errors in the defendant’s favor or primarily protect the defendant’s autonomy — do not apply at sentencing. Framed only a bit differently, one might see concerns for sentencing “accuracy” to be a kind of Crime Control concern, and one that would counsel against preventing judicial consideration of acquitted conduct. But the jury trial right is fundamental to our nation’s vision of Due Process and our commitment to “defendant special protections,” and that’s surely why many are troubled by any judicial sentencing process that functionally disregards a jury’s decision to acquit on certain charges.”

Prof Berman suggests (without endorsing this outcome) that if factual accuracy is paramount at sentencing, the judge will consider acquitted conduct in all its glory. This, of course, is a slippery slope. How about evidence that the judge suppressed and the jury thus never heard? How about proffers (attorneys telling the judge what their witnesses would have said if allowed to testify)?

If due process (protecting a defendant’s rights) is the correct model, then a jury’s acquittal on any particular count is ‘game, set, match’ for sentencing. This is at the expense of accuracy and the core legal principle, first enunciated by Marcus Tullius Cicero two millennia ago, to “let the punishment fit the crime.”

The “due process” model, too, is a slippery slope. After all, “acquitted conduct” sentencing is only a concern in the 2-3% of federal prosecutions that actually go to trial. We’re talking about elephants when the issue should be all animals that are not elephants. For the overwhelming 97% of cases in which the defendant pleads guilty, the Guidelines permit sentencing on “related conduct.” Related conduct can be found by the court only by a fairly squishy “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and the government may meet that standard with hearsay evidence and fuzzy math from witnesses the defendant has no right to confront. In drug and fraud prosecutions especially, where the amount of drugs or amount of loss drives the Guidelines sentencing range, a “due process” model should demand that standards for determining facts at sentencing provide the same “reasonable doubt” and 6th Amendment right of confrontation that a defendant enjoys during the conviction phase.

Prof Berman observed that as he watched the Commission’s hearing “explore[] many of the devilish details, it was clear how acquitted conduct’s intricacies may largely explain why past Commissions have avoided these issues as a policy matter and why the US Supreme Court avoided these issues as a constitutional matter since its 1997 Watts decision.”

can230407Speaking at a symposium at Ohio State last Monday, Judge Carlton Reeves, chairman of the Sentencing Commission, said that the Commission took up acquitted conduct “out of deference to the Supreme Court” after it denied certiorari in McClinton v. United States and said, “Well maybe the Sentencing Commission ought to look at it.”

Earlier, in a Sentencing Commission news release, Judge Reeves said, “When the Supreme Court tells us to address an issue, the commission listens. From continuing the use of acquitted conduct to restricting (or even eliminating) its use in sentencing, all options are on the table.

Sentencing Commission, Public Hearing on Acquitted Conduct (March 6-7)

Sentencing Policy and the Law, USSC hearings on acquitted conduct: the devilish details amid a fundamental criminal process debate (March 6)

Kansas Reflector, Kansas man says prison sentence based on acquitted conduct was ‘ultimate betrayal’ (March 6)

– Thomas L. Root

Senators Denounce BOP-ACA ‘Pas de Deux’ (Which Is A More Refined Way To Describe a ‘Circle Jerk’) – Update for March 7, 2024

Leave a comment

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

THREE SENATORS DEMAND BOP CUT TIES WITH ACA

I agonized over this story. Not because of the content, which is as unsurprising as it is deplorable. But rather, as I asked my wife of 45 years, is it appropriate to use the term “circle jerk” in the LISA Foundation posts?

circlejerk240307I mean, the term really fits. The Federal Bureau of Prisons pays the American Correctional Association to inspect its facilities. Well, not really. The BOP pays ACA to give glowing accreditations to its facilities. As a report issued by the Dept of Justice Inspector General last November found, the BOP doesn’t really want its prisons inspected by outsiders, even friendly outsiders like ACA inspectors. Rather, the BOP is quite happy to inspect itself and then report the results to the ACA, which issues its seal of approval based on the BOP’s self-evaluation.

Sort of like giving yourself a physical, telling the doctor the results, and having the physician issue a clean bill of health based on your evaluation. Or a highly choreographed pas de deux. Or maybe… yeah, sort of like a circle jerk. The BOP pays the ACA, the ACA lets the BOP OK itself, the BOP trumpets its accreditation to the public, and pays the ACA.

As my wife says, “You couldn’t make this s*** up.” A little salty, but a spot-on observation.

wobegon240307The IG’s report said that instead of providing an independent evaluation of BOP, the ACA “relied on the prisons’ own internal reports during reaccreditation reviews.” In other words, as the DOJ put it, “it appears the BOP is, in effect, paying ACA to affirm the BOP’s own findings.”

Last week, three US senators wrote to the Attorney General and BOP Director Colette Peters complaining that BOP reliance on the ACA for accreditation “has proven to be little more than a rubber stamp, and the BOP’s contract with the ACA has been a waste of taxpayer dollars. We urge the BOP not to renew its ACA accreditation contract when it expires.” The ACA contract, covering all of the BOP’s 122 facilities, is worth $2.75 million.

ACAaward240307The senators, Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey (both D-MA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), complain that while “the ACA claims that ‘[a]ccreditation is awarded to the ‘best of the best’ in the corrections field,’ in practice, ACA accreditation is awarded to virtually every facility that pays the accreditation fee.” The letter argues that “given the critical need for meaningful oversight of BOP facilities and the ACA’s complete failure to provide it, the BOP should not renew its ACA contract after it ends in March 2024. The ACA’s accreditation system is ineffective at best, and at worst misleads the public to believe that a failing facility’s operations are adequate. We urge you to identify alternative means of oversight that involve genuinely independent, rigorous audits of each BOP facility.”

They are too polite to call it one big circle jerk. Which it is.

The Appeal, Nonprofit Prison Accreditor Perpetuates Abuse And Neglect, Senators Say (February 29, 2024)

Letter from Senator Warren et al. to Atty General and BOP Director (February 28, 2024)

Dept of Justice OIG, Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Contract Awarded to the American Correctional Association (November 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Peters May Be The One – Update for March 5, 2024

Leave a comment

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

PETERS BLUNT WITH SENATORS ABOUT BOP TROUBLES

No one who’s ever had a beef with what I publish in this blog – and there surely are a lot of people who have complaints – has ever accused me of being an apologist for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. But here goes…

cucumber240305Watching BOP Director Colette Peters testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was a refreshing departure from her previous appearances and a downright treat after enduring years of painful appearances by her clueless predecessor Michael Carvajal.

“The Feds survey says the Federal Bureau of Prisons is the worst place to work in federal government, so we have a lot of work to do,”  Peters candidly told the Committee last Wednesday during the hearing Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) called in response to a DOJ Inspector General report on inmate deaths in federal prison.

That report, issued two weeks before, found that systemic and operational failures contributed to scores of prisoner deaths over the years. Durbin convened the hearing to underscore the report findings that – among others – suicide accounted for over half of the deaths reviewed by the IG.

Sharing the witness stand with DOJ IG Michael Horowitz, Peters was the target of most of the senators’ questions. But unlike her stumbling performances in prior Congressional hearings, Peters was confident, direct and armed with facts and numbers during the 2-hour session. And when Sen John Kennedy (R-LA) hectored her in one of the most bizarre barrage of questions in recent memory, she cooly stared him down while undoubtedly controlling the urge to ask him who tied his shoes for him every morning.

But back to the hearing.

Paters laid most of the blame for the issues raised in the report on BOP’s chronic staffing shortages. She told the senators that the data on BOP correctional officers are “startling,” rattling off the stats:

One in three have symptoms of PTSD. That means more anxiety, more depression, [and] that means more reliance on substance abuse and higher levels of divorce. Over 90% are obese or in the overweight category, over 90% have hypertension or pre-hypertension… What we’re finding across the country, in some places they can leave the [BOP] and work for state corrections and make two to three times more, let alone the bonuses that we’re battling against at fast food organizations. So it is incredibly difficult… I also want to remind the committee that the average onboarding for law enforcement in this country is 21 weeks [of training] and our officers receive about six. It’s truly unfortunate.

psy170427The IG report found that a shortage of psychiatric services employees “strained the ability of staff” in facilities where prisoners died “to provide adequate care to mentally ill inmates.” This has been a chronic BOP problem, where a dearth of mental health resources has led to many people being underdiagnosed, a 2018 Marshall Project investigation found. In the Senate hearing, Horowitz noted that over 60% of people who died by suicide in federal prisons had been on the Mental Health Care Level 1, meaning the BOP had determined that they did not need regular care mental health care.

Peters and Horowitz both pointed to staffing shortages as a key driver of the problems. A lack of clinical staff like psychologists and corrections officers has been an endemic challenge in many BOP facilities, the Marshall Project reported last weekend.

Horowitz also suggested that the BOP’s problems may be more than just staffing. Talking about contraband, he that “we’ve had a staff search policy recommendation open for years that has not been implemented, the basic search policy for staff coming into the facility, that hasn’t happened, either…” Several senators cited a GAO report last month that the BOP has failed to implement 58 of 87 recommendations on improving restrictive housing (also known as Special Housing Units, or SHUs) practices.

Kennedy tried to beat up Peters with a theatrical performance accusing her of using the First Step Act to release 30,000 criminals, 12% of whom have been recidivists (as though the decision when to release prisoners is her responsibility). Punctuating his questions with dramatic eye rolls and sighs of “Wow,” Kennedy sought to blame Peters for releasing thousands of violent criminals to prey on helpless civilians.

Kennedy: “How many criminals have you released under the First Step Act?”

Peters: “We have about 30,000 individuals that have been released since the passage of the First Step Act.”

Kennedy: “All right, so you’ve released 30,000 criminals under the First Step Act, okay? . . . Before you released them, did you contact any of their victims to say, ‘We’re about to let this guy out’?”

Peters: “Senator, it’s my understanding that that notification happens through the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but I will check into that and get back to you.”

Kennedy: “You don’t know?”

Peters: “Senator, I don’t.”

Kennedy: “Wow. Okay, of the 30,000 criminals you let free, how many of them have come back, have committed a crime again, hurt somebody else?”

Peters: “So, that number is one that we’re still looking at as it relates to the recidivism rate for those that were released on the First Step Act.”

Kennedy: “You don’t have any idea?”

Peters: “No, Senator.”

The implication that Peters and the BOP should be responsible for victim notification – a duty of the US Attorneys offices – or maintaining recidivism records is risable. It’s like asking the Veterans Administration how much ammo the Defense Dept has.

tieshoes240305Beyond that, suggesting that somehow Peters was releasing BOP prisoners on her whim, rather than in response to the court-ordered sentences ending or statutory mandates requires a special kind of ignorance of the law unbecoming of a man who was Phi Beta Kappa and with years of experience as a lawyer. That makes his embarrassing performance all the more puzzling.

He did not embarrass Peters, who was calmly unfazed by his attack. Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) finally braced Kennedy: “Don’t put your head in a bag… The First Step Act was a constructive reform of the penal system and I think it was a good idea and I stand by it.”

Sen Cory Booker (D-NJ) said the BOP has simply not been provided enough resources. “I have a lot of frustrations obviously with what’s going on. But I’ve watched you now as a professional struggle mightily to meet the demands that are put on you in a moment where Congress is not giving you the resources necessary to do your job,” Booker said.

Sen Chris Coons (D-DE) told Peters that she has “inherited a deeply troubled institution and I suspect you some days feel like your job is more akin to trying to change the direction of an aircraft carrier than lead an agile and well-resourced organization because the BOP is frankly neither and I appreciate the determination, openness and vigor with which you’ve approached this task.”

Almost half of the suicides took place in a “restrictive housing setting,” the IG Report said. Durbin told Peters that “despite the decrease in Bureau of Prisons total population since you were sworn in as director in August of 2022 the percentage and total of number of individuals and restricted housing is actually higher than it was at that time…”

shucell240212Peters said that almost 40%t of those who lived in restrictive housing did so by their own choice. Nevertheless, she admitted that “everyone who is in restrictive housing has or will suffer from some form of mental or physical damage. I think even those that are agreeing or wanting to be in restrictive housing need to be educated on the fact that that isn’t where they belong and that we need to be able to safely house them in [general population]. Just because they’re volunteering to be there doesn’t mean that the physical and mental wear and tear isn’t happening for them as well.”

“It’s time for solutions and change,” Durbin agreed. “The lives of hundreds of Americans in Bureau of Prisons custody are at risk.”

Roll Call, Federal prison director tells senators about staffing ‘crisis’ (February 28, 2024)

Capital News Service, Deaths in federal prisons draw fire from Senate panel (February 29, 2024)

DOJ, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of Issues Surrounding Inmate Deaths in Federal Bureau of Prisons Institutions (February 15, 2024)

The Marshall Project, How Federal Prisons Are Getting Worse (March 2, 2024)

WHBF-TV, Senate Judiciary Committee grills Bureau of Prisons chief on staffing, inmate deaths (February 28, 2024)

Sen John Kennedy, Kennedy questions Bureau of Prisons on early release of criminals: “You don’t have the slightest idea how many of them committed another crime and came back?” (February 28, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Private FSA Tool To Provide Prisoners Data the BOP Won’t – Update for March 4, 2024

Leave a comment

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

LOOKING FOR THE MAGIC DATE

Maybe the sweetest acronym a federal prisoner has ever heard – LDI – is at the heart of a new tool intended to provide all of the information (and more) that the Federal Bureau of Prisons promised with the PRD (projected release date) calculation it has now apparently abandoned.

wise240304LDI – shorthand for “Last Date Inside” – is “the date on which a federal prisoner should be released to pre-release custody (halfway house or home confinement),” according to Wise First Step. Based on an inmate’s most recent sentence computation and First Step Act time credit assessments, Wise says it “will develop a detailed report that outlines key dates you need to be aware of for you to advocate for your referral to pre-release custody.”

Complaints about BOP management of FSA credits – awarded for completion of programs that reduce recidivism – are legion. One prisoner said in an email that an Excel spreadsheet tool was released to case managers last week, but

it is problematic because the calculation tool must be updated every 30 days due to 10-15 FTC earned over that time cycle. This does nothing to ease the burden on Case Managers or help inmates plan accordingly. Even more problematic is the fact that the calculator does not take into account any of the days that will be earned while in pre-release custody… [What’s more,] RRM offices are not accepting “projected days” earned while waiting for the RRM submission to come back.

Another inmate said, “We were also told that sometime in January 2024, we would have access to the PRD on Trulincs [inmate computer system]. Of course, none of that has happened. Now the case managers are telling us that the FSA projected release would NOT help you once you received your 1 year off AND we are not going to have access to the PRD. It has been ‘shelved indefinitely’.”

The BOP announced last December that it was releasing a “Conditional Release Calculator” that provided “needed information regarding the potential positive impact of earning Federal Time Credits (FTC) towards advancing an individual’s release date,” but that calculator reflected only time “applied toward advancing the individual’s transfer to supervised release and an earlier release from FBOP custody,” not transfer to halfway house or home confinement. When in halfway house and home confinement, a prisoner remains in BOP custody.

data240304The major issue in FSA credit application right now is halfway house availability. Writing in Forbes last January, Walter Pavlo observed that inmates are being denied the right to spend their credits because “the BOP does not have room in halfway houses to monitor those who have rightfully earned First Step Act credits. The result, thousands of prisoners languish in expensive institutions rather than being placed in community halfway houses.” The First Step Act uses mandatory language, requiring the BOP to place the qualifying inmates in halfway house or home confinement, but agency officials are shrugging their shoulders in feigned helplessness because halfway houses are refusing transfers.

Inmates have been hitting a wall when trying to remedy the denials in court. Just last week, a court threw out a complaint because the petitioner had provided no facts showing that he “has been denied all opportunity to earn time credits, that he has credits to apply, or that he has been denied the ability to apply earned credits to supervised release or another form of prerelease custody.” Another district court ruled against a prisoner, holding that he “fails to include any factual allegations supporting his claim that he was otherwise qualified under Section 3624 of the FSA… for prerelease custody or supervised release.” A decision earlier last month held that “Assuming that petitioner is entitled to a total of 740 days of credits between his prerelease custody and release, his accrued credits are not equal to the remainder of his prison term. He is therefore not eligible to apply FSA time credits at this time…”

itsadate240304Using a proprietary system it has tested over the past six months, Wise will provide a series of dates that tell inmates when to begin advocating for halfway house/home confinement, when to pursue administrative remedies, and when the prisoner’s LDI falls. Wise says in its program description, “The individualized details in this report have enabled hundreds of inmates to accelerate the process for transfer out of prison.”

Wise First Step can be contacted at (202) 921-0200 and email (accepting Corrlinks) at sarah@wisefirststep.org.

Wise First Step Program

BOP, Conditional FSA Release Date Calculator (December 5, 2023)

Forbes, The Bureau of Prisons’ Halfway House Problem (January 16, 2024)

Cuong Mach Tieu v. United States, Case No. 2:23-cv-2858, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34442 (E.D. Cal., February 27, 2024)

Cook v. Peters, Case No. 3:23CV2211, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32754 (N.D. Ohio, February 26, 2024)

Urenda v Warden, Case No 2:23-cv-1410, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22513 (E.D. Cal., February 7, 202e)

Drug Pushers: Advocates Press Biden On Marijuana Reform – Update for March 1, 2024

Leave a comment

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

THE POT PLOT THICKENS

marijuana160818Marijuana advocates last week argued that President Biden is missing an opportunity to sway young voters with his reluctance to take bigger steps to legalize marijuana at the federal level.

The Biden administration has pardoned people convicted of federal simple possession and started a process that may lead to rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Biden has promised to deliver the rescheduling decision by the end of the year.

However, Biden’s efforts so far have left advocates unimpressed, The Hill reported last week, with the buzz being that he is “falling short of his 2020 campaign promises and failing to address the disparate overcriminalization of the drug that has unduly impacted minority communities.”

Progressives in the Senate are urging Biden to completely deschedule pot, which would effectively decriminalize it federally. “Marijuana’s placement in the [CSA] has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion,” twelve Democratic lawmakers wrote to the DEA last month.

And they’re not the only ones. Last week, former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson, now a marijuana advocate and entrepreneur, sent Biden a letter calling on the Administration to reconcile with communities, including the poor and minorities, who have paid the heavy cost of the War on Drugs.

marijuanahell190918“I write in support of granting clemency to marijuana offenders still incarcerated in federal prison and restoring civil rights to those haunted by a federal marijuana conviction,” the Tyson letter began. “Through a categorical clemency grant you can declare an end to federal warfare on our own people and mark a new era based on peace and prosperity.”

Public opinion is strongly in favor of marijuana legalization. A Gallup poll from November found a record 70 percent of Americans believed marijuana should be legal.

Presidential candidate Trump’s exact stance on pot seems to flip-flop and remain ambiguous. He appointed marijuana-hating Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as his first Attorney General, but then signed the First Step Act (which he now loves or hates on alternate days).

Biden has not pivoted as dramatically as he claims to have done on marijuana reform. One commentator says, “The people who argue that Biden is “responsible for the most significant marijuana reform in American history”… are right. The people who argue that Biden hasn’t done nearly enough on marijuana reform are also right.”

The Hill, Biden missing opportunity on legalizing marijuana, advocates warn (February 23, 2024)

The Guardian, Mike Tyson urges Biden to free thousands locked up over cannabis: ‘Right these wrongs’ (February 19, 2024)

Harris Sliwoski, Grading the Presidential Candidates on Cannabis (February 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Director On Senate Judiciary Hot Seat Tomorrow – Update for February 27, 2024

Leave a comment

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

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WANTS ANSWERS ON BOP INMATE DEATHS

critic160816The impact of a trio of government reports berating the Federal Bureau of Prisons continued to reverberate last week. A scheduled appearance of BOP Director Colette Peters and her new nemesis, Dept of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow promises that the cascade of criticism will continue pouring down on the agency..

A February 6 Government Accountability Office report chastised the BOP for implementing fewer than half of prior GAO recommendations on the use of restrictive housing (such as the SHU and Communications Management Units). The report blamed the BOP for failing to “assign[] responsibility for implementing these recommendations to the appropriate officials.”

A February 15 DOJ Office of Inspector General report found that “a combination of recurring policy violations and operational failures” – including deficiencies in inmate assessments and Mental Health Care Level assignments, holding inmates at risk for suicides in single cells, lack of urgency in responding to medical emergencies, and poor after-the-fact recordkeeping – contributed to inmate deaths.

A companion management advisory also issued on February 15 advised the BOP of the OIG’s “concerns” about the “inadequacy” of BOP policies on retaining records of rounds made by SHU COs “to ensure the preservation of those original documents as evidence when allegations of misconduct are raised.”

documentretention240227A Washington Post opinion column by Joe Davidson, who covers federal government issues in the Federal Insider, flayed the BOP as “an agency in crisis.” “The Federal Bureau of Prisons has been a profoundly broken agency for a very long time now,” he quoted David C. Fathi, American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project director, as saying.

Laura Rovner, director of the University of Denver’s Civil Rights Clinic, who has represented isolated prisoners, is quoted as saying the BOP “is lacking the ability or the will to change, possibly both of those things.”

Last week, Government Executive – a publication aimed at federal managers – reported that the IG found “wildly different document retention standards, ranging from as little as one month to the recommended six months, to as long as 10 years.” The report itself noted that “OIG has conducted numerous investigations of allegations that BOP employees falsified round documentation; thus, such documentation is often important evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions,” Horowitz wrote. “If documentation related to potential staff misconduct, such as mandatory round logs, are only retained for six months, such evidence may be destroyed before the discovery that a crime occurred.”

bureaucraticgobbledygook24019In her response, Peters called the inspector general’s findings “troubling” and agreed with all of the report’s recommendations, though she stressed that the misconduct cited was one by a “very small percentage of the approximately 35,000 employees . . . who continue to strive for correctional excellence every day.”

Sen Dick Durbin (D-IL), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has been a supporter of Director Peters but said this month that he was “extremely disappointed” and “disheartened” that BOP officials “have not implemented multiple recommendations to curb restrictive housing. This issue has been studied extensively, and now is the time for action.”

bureaucracybopspeed230501Committee members expressed some frustration with Ms. Peters at the BOP oversight hearing last October for the agency’s habit of being nonresponsive to their written questions, many of which have gone unanswered for over a year. It is unlikely that her effort to palm problems off onto “a very small percentage” of employees or to mouth platitudes about “35,000 employees… who continue to strive for correctional excellence every day” will let her leave the hearing unscathed.

Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing on Examining and Preventing Deaths of Incarcerated Individuals in Federal Prisons (set for February 28, 2024)

GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Restrictive Housing Practices (February 6, 2024)

DOJ OIG, Evaluation of Issues Surrounding Inmate Deaths in Federal Bureau of Prisons Institutions (February 15, 2024)

DOJ OIC, Notification of Concerns Regarding Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Policies Pertaining to Special Housing Unit Logs Used to Record Mandatory Rounds and the Retention Period for the Original Logs (February 15, 2024)

Washington Post, Watchdog reports cite long-standing crises in federal prisons (February 23, 2024)

Govt Executive, Federal prison employees falsified logs in case where inmate committed suicide, IG says (February 21, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Uphold Double Jeopardy 9-0 – Update for February 26, 2024

Leave a comment

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

THIS IS JEOPARDY!

Damian McElrath killed the woman who had adopted him based on his delusional belief that she was poisoning him. Georgia charged him with premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. At his trial, the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity of premeditated murder but guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault.

jeopardy240226The 5th Amendment ban on double jeopardy – being tried twice for the same offense – should have meant that Damian’s acquittal on murder was the end of things for that charge. But the Georgia Supreme Court held that the verdicts of innocent on premeditated murder but guilty on the two lesser charges were directly contradictory.

There was no way that Damian could have the necessary state of mind to be guilty of the two lesser offenses but not have the state of mind for the greater offense, the Georgia Supreme Court held.. Thus, it concluded that the contradiction meant that the jury’s conclusion did not count as a “verdict” and Georgia could retry him, even on the premeditated murder on which he had been acquitted.

Last Wednesday, the US Supreme Court made short work of the case. Justice Jackson wrote for a unanimous Court that the fact that Damian’s

‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ verdict was accompanied by other verdicts that appeared to rest on inconsistent findings is of no moment… The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits second-guessing an acquittal for any reason… Once there has been an acquittal, our cases prohibit any speculation about the reasons for a jury’s verdict—even when there are specific jury findings that provide a factual basis for such speculation—because it is impossible for a court to be certain about the ground for the verdict without improperly delving into the jurors’ deliberations. We simply cannot know why the jury in McElrath’s case acted as it did, and the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids us to guess.”

McElrath v Georgia, Case No 22-721, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 997 (Supreme Ct., February 21, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Denies a Habeas Corpus, But With An Interesting Twist – Update for February 23, 2024

Leave a comment

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

WHERE THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A PROCEDURAL WAY

hobbsact200218Mike Bowe was convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, during which a gun was fired. So he was convicted as well of an 18 USC § 924(c) violation for the gun and received a sentence for an additional 10 years. After the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis back in 2019, Mike filed a motion for 11th Circuit permission to file a second § 2255 motion arguing that his predicate Hobbs Act attempt was not a crime of violence to which a § 924(c) could attach.

The Circuit turned him down, holding that Mike’s § 924(c) conviction was predicated in part on attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which remained a qualifying “crime of violence” (COV) under circuit precedent. But after that, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor in 2022, holding that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not COV, meaning that Mike had been right all along.

Being right doesn’t count for much in the world of habeas corpus. When Mike again asked for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, the 11th Circuit again turned him down, this time because 28 USC 2244(b)(1) – part of the statute governing the procedure for getting permission for a successive § 2255 motion – barred him from raising an issue already denied in a prior § 2255 motion. No matter that the Circuit had denied that claim under erroneous, pre-Taylor precedent. Mike did everything right; his § 924(c) conviction was plainly invalid; and, but for the misapplication of § 2244(b)(1), he would now be a free man.

Under 28 USC § 2244, a prisoner who is denied the right to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion is not allowed to appeal the denial any further. It’s over. But Mike had some canny lawyers, and they filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, a permissible but seldom used gambit. They pointed out that under 28 USC § 2244(b)(1), a federal court must dismiss a “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application.” 28 USC § 2244(b)(1). But state prisoners seek federal post-conviction relief under § 2254. Federal prisoners seek post-conviction relief under § 2255. Mike argued that three Circuits agreed that § 2244(b)(1) only affected state prisoners: Mike was free to bring his attempted Hobbs Act COV claim again, and that their position – not the view of the six circuits going the other way – should prevail.

The Government agreed with Mike.

habeas191211On Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied Mike’s § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. No surprise there: the Court hasn’t granted habeas to a federal prisoner in a long time. But what is noteworthy is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kavanaugh in calling for a grant of review to decide the split.

But how to do that? Because the Government agrees § 2244(b)(1) doesn’t apply to federal prisoners, if one of the three circuits agreeing with that position grant permission for a second-or-successive § 2255, there will never be a petition for certiorari filed by the Government. But if the petitioner is in one of the six circuits that say that § 2244(b)(1) applies to federal prisoners as well as state prisoners, permission to file a second-or-successive § 2255 in a case like Mike’s will never be granted, and the unfortunate prisoner will not be allowed to seek certiorari.

Justice Sotomayor admitted that “[t]here are considerable structural barriers to this Court’s ordinary review via certiorari petition.”

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the three Circuits that read § 2244(b)(1) to apply only to state prisoners. Before a federal prisoner can file a second or successive habeas corpus § 2255 motion, a court of appeals must certify it. When a federal prisoner files a second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue he has raised previously, neither the court of appeals nor the district court will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar. If the court of appeals certifies the motion, the district court will decide it on the merits.

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the six Circuits that apply § 2244(b)(1) to both state and federal prisoners either. In those Circuits, the court of appeals will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar and deny certification to any second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue the prisoner has previously raised. Neither the Government nor the prisoner can seek review of that interpretation of § 2244(b)(1) from this Court, however, because the law bars petitions for certiorari stemming from “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application.”

sotomayor240223Mike tried to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions under § 2241(a). However, as Justice Sotomayor said, “The standard for this Court’s consideration of an original habeas petition is a demanding one. A petitioner must show both that ‘adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court” and “exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers. Whether Mike has met that demanding standard here is questionable,” the Justice wrote, “because it is not clear that, absent § 2244(b)(1)’s bar, the 11th Circuit would have certified his § 2255 motion.”

But the Circuit split needs to be settled, the Justice said, and thus, she “would welcome the invocation of this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction in a future case where the petitioner may have meritorious § 2255 claims. The Government also suggests that a court of appeals seeking clarity could certify the question to this Court.  In the meantime, in light of the demanding standard for this Court’s jurisdiction over original habeas petitions, I encourage the courts of appeals to reconsider this question en banc, where appropriate.”

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State law professor Doug Berman observed, “I still recall fondly when the Second Circuit in United States v. Penaranda, a full 20 years ago, certified three questions to SCOTUS concerning the application of Blakely to the federal sentencing system. I am not sure if there have been any other circuit certifications in the last two decades, but I am sure it is interesting to have two Justices flag this notable means of getting an issue on the SCOTUS docket”

Where there’s a will on the Supreme Court to hear an issue, there’s a way to get it there. Just not for Mike and not for today.

In re Bowe, Case No. 22-7871, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 988 (February 20, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS order list includes a notable statement in a habeas denial (February 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP’s Ambitious “Framework for the Future’s” Overshadowed Launch – Update for February 22, 2024

Leave a comment

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

IG REPORT RAINS ON DIRECTOR’S PARADE

rainparade240222The tsunami of the Inspector General’s bad news (which I reported on Monday) threatened to wash away BOP Director Colette Peters’ rollout earlier last week of the agency’s “Framework for the Future,” an ambitious and obese plan “encompassing seven goals and over 180 unique initiatives… set to redefine the Bureau’s operations,” according to the BOP press release, which gushed:

The Executive Team, consisting of Regional Directors, Assistant Directors, and key figures from within the Director’s office, is personally overseeing these initiatives. Their unwavering commitment is geared towards propelling the agency forward, fostering a humane and secure environment, and preparing individuals for successful reentry into communities.

The BOP told employees in a video message last week that Peters had introduced the “Framework for the Future” and “engage[d] and empower[ed] the agency’s dedicated workforce with details about the seven goals.”

somebull240222C’mon, Ms. Peters, please empower your dedicated PR flacks to spare us the bureaucratic happy talk BS, And while we’re at it, seven goals?  One hundred eighty unique initiatives? Let’s keep it simple.

Writing in Forbes, Walter Pavlo said, “Peters was given a mandate by Congress to improve the BOP but many of those needed improvements have been problems for years. Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office have both authored scathing reports on the BOP. Peters, who appeared on 60 Minutes earlier this month, understands that the BOP cannot continue to operate inefficiently, and in some cases inhumanely, as it has for decades.”

Pavlo says many believe that Peters is “the agent of change needed to overhaul the BOP… which has been plagued by employee misconduct… increases in healthcare costs, understaffing, and infrastructure decay. The BOP has also had difficulty implementing the First Step Act… Delays in implementation have been caused by early misinterpretation of the law, computer glitches and a shortage of halfway house capacity.”

“The BOP has challenges and now Peters has outlined a plan to overcome them,” Pavlo says, but he warns that “it will not be easy.”

listenup240222Peters has taken a deliberate approach to the problems, which are legion. During her first year as Director, Peters conducted “listening sessions,” including the novel but quite reasonable requirement for wardens of the BOP’s 122-odd facilities to listen to former prisoners, crime victims, subordinates in prison management and line workers, and advocates for change in the system. Writing in a Federal News Network story, Pavlo and attorney Alan Ellis predicted that “[i]t will take another year to judge the new direction Peters wants to take the agency, but expect her to double down on her message of a more humane federal prison system.”

Last summer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed making the director of the Bureau of Prisons a Senate-confirmed position in S.2284, the Federal Prisons Accountability Act of 2023. The same measure has been filed in the House of Representatives as H.R.4138 by Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), a member of the House BOP Reform Caucus.

Pavlo and Ellis observed that “Director Peters has enjoyed a long honeymoon with lawmakers, but they will be looking for results in 2024 — and so will many prisoners and BOP staff members.”

Bureau of Prisons, Reforming the Federal Bureau of Prisons (February 12. 2024)

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Director Lays Out Goals For Improving Agency (February 13, 2024)

Federal News Network, The Bureau of Prisons and the challenges going into 2024 (February 21, 2024)

S.2284 – Federal Prisons Accountability Act of 2023

– Thomas L. Root