All posts by lisa-legalinfo

A Day to Beat Up Lawyers – Update for February 23, 2021

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.

LAWYERS BEHAVING BADLY

Today, we feature a pair of cases in which lawyers are the stars, and not in a good way:

banana210223I Feel Conflicted: When Eric Scurry arrived for day 1 of his drug trial, his lawyer – Chris Davis – was missing. It seemed Chris had a hearing in another courtroom, and that one was more important to him than Eric’s was. This is not a development calculated to give a client a warm, fuzzy feeling about his attorney, the notion that his or her freedom was playing second banana to a client who had paid more for the lawyer’s services.

But not to fear, Eric! Chris’s wife, Mary, was also a lawyer, and Chris – who cared about Eric’s case very much – dispatched her to cover the trial. No matter (as it turned out later) that Mary had not read the file and knew nothing about Eric’s case. She was a warm body with a law degree, just what a guy facing decades in prison needed.

Had Mary read the file, she would have been aware that Eric and his co-defendants previously had attacked the wiretap that led to their arrest for a technical deficiency, albeit a glaring one. The district court denied their motion to suppress the evidence, but the issue their joint motion raised was a substantial one.

Everyone on the defense side of the table knew that… except for Mary. She convinced Eric to take a plea deal for a minimum 10 years, reserving only the right to appeal one inconsequential pretrial holding. The co-defendants also pled, but their attorneys reserved the right to appeal the wiretap suppression.

jailfree140410That turned out to be a good deal for Eric’s co-defendants. They appealed and won. The Court of Appeals held the government’s wiretap application to be deficient, and all of the evidence against them was suppressed. The co-defendants walked free. But Eric did not, because his plea deal did not reserve the right to raise that issue.

Eric seemed to recognize that Mary had screwed up, because on appeal, he had the Davises thrown off his case. He told the court he planned to accuse them later of incompetence. That made sense. But what happened next did not.

Inexplicably, when Eric filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 seeking to set aside his guilty plea, Mary offered to represent him on the motion, and he agreed. She then amended the § 2255 motion, claiming Eric had been coerced into pleading guilty by the evidence that had later been thrown out in his co-defendants’ cases, thus giving him the same level of professional representation on his § 2255 that she had given him at trial: lousy.

The problem was simple: to set aside his guilty plea and plea deal, Eric was required to show not just that his perception of the admissibility of the evidence was wrong, but that his lawyer had given him incompetent representation. Which of course Mary had. But because Mary failed to argue her own incompetence during the § 2255, the court denied Eric relief.

conflict200318Last week, the D.C. Circuit threw Mary (and, for good measure, Chris) off the case again. The problem is, the Circuit said, “as long as counsel’s advice to take the plea rather than gamble on an evidentiary suppression issue was “reasonably competent,” the plea is “not open to attack on the ground that counsel may have misjudged the admissibility of the defendant’s confession.” That being the case, Eric could not win his § 2255 unless he showed Mary has given him incompetent advice. And that, as I noted, meant Mary would have to argue that she was incompetent.

The Circuit ruled that “by affirmatively intervening in Scurry’s collateral proceedings despite the conflict and not pressing the ineffective assistance claim, Davis seemingly made a choice advancing her own interest at the expense of her client’s.”

Eric will get another shot at relief, this time – we trust – with a competent lawyer.

usmale210223I’m A U.S. Male: Elvis warned that you shouldn’t “tamper with the property of the U.S. Mail (or maybe ‘male’)”. Last week, Sixth Circuit said you can’t use the U.S. mail to tamper with statutory deadlines, either.

Blake Cretacci hired a lawyer to file a 42 USC § 1983 action for damages against some local jail guards who allegedly used excessive force against him and . Blake hired a local lawyer by the unlikely name of Andy Justice, who prepared the complaint. Andy planned to file the federal court complaint electronically, as attorney members of the bar of the court are allowed to do. But on the night before the statute of limitations expired on Blake’s claim, Andy discovered that Coffee County, Tennessee, where the conduct occurred, was not in the Middle District of Tennessee, where Andy was admitted, but instead in the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Andy was not admitted.

The next day, Andy tried to get admitted to the Eastern District so he could electronically file the complaint, but that could not be accomplished in only a day. Andy drove to a federal courthouse in Winchester, Tennessee, to try to file the complaint in person, but there was no staffed clerk’s office there. By then, Andy could not get to the Chattanooga federal courthouse in time, but he had an idea.

The “prison mailbox rule,” enshrined in Houston v. Lack, holds that if an inmate files a document with a federal court by mailing it from the prison, the filing is deemed to be delivered to the courthouse the moment the inmate turns it over to a prison official. Andy, being a bright lawyer, knew this, so he ran the complaint over to Blake at the jail.

Andy told Blake that he should deliver it to a correctional officer immediately, explaining that because he was an inmate, he could take advantage of the prison mailbox rule. Blake did so.

dogmail210223Last week, the 6th Circuit threw out Blake’s complaint as untimely. The Circuit ruled that “the prison mailbox rule was created to prevent pro se prisoners from being penalized by any delays in filing caused by the prison mail system. But if a prisoner does not need to use the prison mail system, and instead relies on counsel to file a pleading on his or her behalf, the prison is no longer responsible for any delays and the rationale of the prison mailbox rule does not apply… Accordingly, we hold that, in the context of the filing of civil complaints, the prison mailbox rule applies only to prisoners who are not represented by counsel and are proceeding pro se.”

Nice try, Andy, but you can’t use the U.S. mail to tamper with court deadlines. Elvis could have told you that.

United States v. Scurry, Case No 18-3067, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4785 (D.C. Cir.  Feb 19, 2021)

Cretacci v. Call, Case No 20-5669, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4493 (6th Cir. Feb 17, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

$timulus Bill Is Cash-Rich But Justice-Poor – Update for February 22, 2021

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.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS

benjamins210222The House of Representatives finally released the text of the new stimulus package last Thursday, the 591-page American Rescue Plan, which includes billions of dollars for vaccine, unemployment benefits, state coffers, small businesses and stimulus checks, not to mention a grab-bag of special interest goodies like $15.00 an hour for the kid assembling sandwiches at the neighborhood McDonalds.

The American Rescue Plan contains something for almost everyone. Almost. For federal prisoners, the bad news is this: unlike the CARES Act (adopted 11 months ago) and the HEROES Act (a House measure last May that never passed the Senate), the American Rescue Plan contains nothing easing compassionate release, fixing the elderly offender home detention plan, or addressing any other criminal justice program.

The good news: inmates will be eligible for the $1,400 stimulus payment, just as they were eligible for the prior $1,200 and $600 payments.

[How to get stimulus payments, old and new]

The reasons that the ARP left out in a criminal justice measures are complex. Primarily, it is because Congress wanted to move rapidly, and the Democrats are pushing hard for Republican support in the evenly divided Senate. The New York Times reports that the House may pass the ARP this week, and the goal is to have President Biden sign the bill by March 14 (when existing federal unemployment money runs out). ARP is all about money, and sponsors want to keep it that way, because as a money bill, ARP has broad public support.

The Biden administration clearly plans some sort of comprehensive criminal justice reform this year. At a townhall meeting in Milwaukee last week, Biden said, “No one should go to jail for the use of a drug. They should go to drug rehabilitation.” The sentencing system should be changed to one that focuses on making sure that there are rehabilitation plans for inmates more generally, Biden said, adding that prison systems should have access to vocational programs that help those behind bars learn the career skills they need to succeed outside of prison.”

booker210222Meanwhile, Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) has been picked to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism. The subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes the Dept of Justice Criminal Division; the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Prisons, Sentencing Commission, and other law enforcement agencies.

This is significant, because a subcommittee chairman controls the subcommittee’s agenda, and can bring substantial pressure – even without writing legislation – on the agencies it oversees. “Our nation’s broken criminal justice system is a stain on the soul of our country, the result of decades of failed policies that have broken apart families and communities and have not made us safer,” Booker said. “I look forward to continuing and strengthening my partnership with Chairman Durbin [Sen Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee] to further advance reforms to our policing and criminal justice system.”

letter161227Finally, interest groups finally have sympathetic ears in Congress and at DOJ. In an open letter to the not-yet-confirmed Attorney General, Merrick Garland, the ACLU urged him “to make clear, on-the-record commitments on five critical issues: mass incarceration; policing; COVID-19 in federal detention; the death penalty; and solitary confinement.” The ACLU asked that the “Trump DOJ’s efforts to thwart Congressional intent behind the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 should also be reversed: DOJ should support application of the Act’s reduced penalties at all sentencings, including resentencings in cases where an illegal sentence was vacated.”

HR -____, American Rescue Plan (reported to the House), Feb 18, 2021

New York Times, Republicans Struggle to Derail Increasingly Popular Stimulus Package (February 19, 2021)

Washington Examiner, Biden: ‘No one should go to jail for the use of a drug’ (February 16, 2021)

NJInsider, Booker to Chair Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism (February 14, 2021)

ACLU, Open Letter to Merrick Garland (February 18, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

“Frenzied” BOP Needs More for Less – Update for February 20, 2021

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.

DESPITE FEWER INMATES, BOP IN ‘FRENZY’ TO STAFF UP

work210219What other business responds to a loss of customers by hiring more staff?

Despite the fact that the inmate population has decreased by 29% since 2013, the Federal Bureau of Prisons hired 4,000 new employees last year, and “is poised to add thousands more this year through a network of activities including advertising campaigns, virtual interviews and new job incentives,” according to a press release announcing a “hiring frenzy” issued last week.

The BOP has even “paused internal selections in order to devote 100% of the agency’s resources toward finding qualified candidates from outside the bureau,” for the next four months, a spokesman told Government Executive last week.

According to a Dept. of Justice Inspector General report last November, the BOP had a 16% vacancy rate for COs as of last June. Employees’ union officials have said staffing levels make “efforts to respond to COVID-19, national social unrest and basic operations within our prisons…a daily struggle.”

In the short term, there will still be “severe shortages in staffing in all departments, excessive backlog of duties, continued augmentation even further putting the non-custody staff further behind in their duties,” Aaron McGlothin, a CO and local union president at FCI Mendota told Government Executive. There could also be less programming for inmates and staff will be at greater “risk of assault by failing to provide the inmates with their rights under the ‘First Step Act’ and other needs.”

nowhiring210219Last November’s IG report noted that from 2000 to 2016, the BOP’s per capita cost of incarceration increased from about $22,000 to nearly $35,000 per inmate. “Consequently,” the IG said, “even though the BOP inmate population has declined by 29% from 2013 to 2020 to a current total of approximately 155,000 total inmates, the BOP continues to account for fully 24% of the Department’s total budget request in 2020.”

The good news in all of this is that BOP budget pressures and staff shortages may make a criminal justice reform bill palatable to otherwise hostile legislators.

Government Executive, Federal Bureau of Prisons Launches New Hiring Effort (February 11, 2021)

Bureau of Prisons, BOP’s Hiring Frenzy (February 10, 2021)

DOJ Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Justice–2020 (Oct 16, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

First, Do Something Futile… And Do It Well – Update for February 19, 2021

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.

COMPLETENESS COUNTS IN COMPASSIONATE RELEASE REQUEST TO WARDEN

compassionate200928Cory Williams wanted to file for compassionate release based on what he alleged was misconduct by his trial judge. So he dutifully asked his warden to bring the motion, as required by the administrative exhaustion requirement of 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The BOP refused, of course (as it always does), so Cory himself filed a compassionate release motion with the federal court that had originally sentenced him.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of federal courts adopted standing orders that all inmates filing their own compassionate release motions would have counsel appointed to assist them. Cory’s court was one of those. The court appointed counsel to represent Cory. As we all know, counsel knows best (probably true in this case, where a defendant was essentially asking a judge to acknowledge his own misconduct was so bad that a defendant should be freed from prison). Counsel wisely scrapped Cory’s “I-should-go-home,-Your-Honor,-because-you’re-a-bum” argument, and filed an amended compassionate release motion that sought Cory’s based solely on COVID-19.

The government argued Cory had not exhausted his remedies with the BOP, because he had not raised his susceptibility to COVID-19 to the warden as a reason for compassionate release. Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with the government.

“We have not yet had occasion to consider whether, in order properly to exhaust, an inmate is required to present the same or similar ground for compassionate release in a request to the Bureau as in a motion to the court,” the Circuit ruled. “But now that the issue is squarely before us, we confirm that this is the rule — any contrary approach would undermine the purpose of exhaustion.”

negativezero210219“The purpose of exhaustion…” That’s like saying the purpose of taking your kid to see Santa Claus at the Mall is to be sure he brings her the right toys on Christmas morning. Between March and December 2020, the BOP only granted 11 out of 10,940 inmate requests (that’s 0.001005484%, for you math fans). Let’s round that to about one out of 1,000 requests.

The § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) exhaustion requirement seems like so much Kabuki theater. No matter. A request to the warden is the price of admission, and that request should clearly state the grounds the inmate intend to use when he or she petitions the court without the BOP’s help, as invariably is the case.

United States v. Williams, Case No 20-2404, 2021 USApp LEXIS 3762 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Some Guys With Clout Propose Sentence Reform – Update for February 18, 2021

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 ODD COUPLE ARE BACK… WITH A WELCOME BILL

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ranking Republican on the Committee are a political odd couple if ever there was one. Liberal lion Durbin from uber-Democrat Illinois and an octogenarian raised-on-the-farm Republican seem to have nothing in common, but…

oddcouple210219But they are the duo who brought you the First Step Act, and last week they jointly introduced a bill to reform the Elderly Home Detention and compassionate release programs.

elderly180517The Elderly Offender program lets old folks (age 60 and above, so that includes your correspondent) – non-violent criminals whose continued incarceration cost the Bureau of Prison so much in medical expenses – serve the last third of their sentences on home confinement (where they pay for their room, board and medical, not Uncle Sam). That seems like a sweet deal for them and for the government. 

But trust the Bureau to manage to screw up a one-car parade. The BOP decided that two-thirds of the sentence meant two-thirds of the whole sentence, not for the good-time adjusted sentence that everyone ends up serving.  So an aged fraudster with a 100-month sentence – who will serve 85 months with good conduct time figured in – doesn’t get home confinement starting at 66.7% of 85 months, but instead must serve 66.7% of 100 months before he goes to home detention.

That’s not what Congress ever meant, as the House explained to the BOP last year in the HEROES Act (H.R.6800), which modified the statute to say as much). But HEROES never got a vote in the Senate.

elderly190109Now, Durbin’s and Grassley’s COVID-19 Safer Detention Act would clarify that the amount of time an inmate must serve to qualify for Elderly Home Detention should be calculated based on his or her 85% date, not the gross sentence. Additionally, the bill would reduce the minimum sentence for Elderly Home Detention from 66% to 50%, and give inmates who are denied Elderly Home Detention the right of judicial review.

The bill also proposes providing that COVID-19 vulnerability is a legitimate basis for compassionate release, and shortening the period prisoners must wait after submitting requests to the BOP to file with their courts from 30 to 10 days.

Three Republican and three Democrats have joined in sponsoring the bill. Ohio State law professor Doug Berman said last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, “Senators Durbin and Grassley are now the leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would seem to improve the odds of this bill moving forward.”

Press release, Durbin, Grassley Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Reform Elderly Home Detention and Compassionate Release Amid COVID-19 Pandemic (February 10, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Senators Durbin and Grassley re-introduce “COVID-19 Safer Detention Act” (February 11, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Mandamus Brings A Habeas Home – Update for February 17, 2021

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.

MANDAMUS FINALLY WORKS FOR SOMEONE

money160118I would retire right now if I had a dime for every time a federal prisoner asks about filing a petition for writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a powerful weapon: the writ (literally, the order) of mandamus is issued by a higher court, directing a lower court it has to do something – that is, something ministerial instead of discretionary.

The best example is also, at least in the federal criminal sphere, the most common. A lower court has discretion as to whether it grants a party relief on, say, a petition for habeas corpus. The judge may grant it; the judge may deny it. But the court cannot sit on its gavel and do nothing. It must do something, although it is permitted a reasonable period of time in which to study, contemplate, and dig its way down its stack of other uncompleted work to get to the petition.

There are other, more creative uses of mandamus, most often practiced in civil litigation. But for now, let’s stick to the straightforward “making a lower court do something that is obviously ministerial.”

mandamus210218Because it’s so powerful, mandamus is a hard writ to obtain. The test for convincing a writ of mandamus includes showing that the movant’s right to the writ is indisputable and that there is simply no other way for the movant to get relief. It’s sort of the 9-1-1 call of extraordinary writs.

Kevin Hall was a federal prisoner pursuing a 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. A § 2241 motion – which is the federal version of the classic writ of habeas corpus – must be filed in the district where the prisoner is located, which Kevin did. But then the Bureau of Prisons moved him from Indiana to Florida (something that I, looking out my window at 18″ of snow on the ground, think sounds like a good deal). The Indiana federal district court in which Kev had filed his petition inexplicably concluded that his transfer stripped it of jurisdiction to hear the § 2241 motion. Thus, the court transferred Kev’s case to Florida.

Any aficionado of the federal circuits knows that a defendant would much rather have his or her post-conviction motion heard in the 7th Circuit (of which Indiana is a part) than in the 11th Circuit (down Florida way). This is especially so where the remedy Kevin sought – a holding that the 2015 Supreme Court Johnson decision invalidated his Armed Career Criminal Act conviction – was likely to be shot down by the 11th, which doesn’t like any such § 2241 attacks on convictions or sentences.

So Kevin asked the 7th Circuit for a writ of mandamus bringing the case back to Indiana. He cited prior decisions holding that a prisoner’s transfer from one federal facility to another during a habeas proceeding does not affect the original court’s jurisdiction. Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with Kevin, and issued the order.

home210218The government argued that Kev should have completely litigated his § 2241 motion in the Florida court, and then bring up the mistaken-transfer issue on appeal. The 7th swept the argument aside, noting that “without the availability of mandamus relief, the question of proper venue escapes meaningful appellate review… Mandamus is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of a transfer decision…”

In re Hall, Case 20-3245, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4086 (7th Cir., February 12, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Pardon Joe While He Works on Clemency – Update for February 16, 2021

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.

WHITE HOUSE BEGINS TO UNTANGLE CLEMENCY MESS

broken210216President Biden has inherited 14,000 unresolved clemency requests – petitions seeking a pardon (forgiveness of the offense) or commutation of sentence (reduction of sentence, usually to time served). Many of the clemency petitions date from the Obama era but a good number piled up in the last four years, during which time who you knew was more important that what you wrote in your petition.

Politico reported last week that the White House is seeking suggestions on how to reform the clemency system and deal with the backlog. But the White House so far has revealed little about its plans, leaving advocates concerned that Biden’s team lacks a comprehensive plan for dealing with the backlog.

Over 100 criminal justice reform groups are urging Biden to overhaul the process and start resolving cases right away. The ACLU launched an ad campaign last month to push him to grant clemency to 25,000 people and make good on his pledge to tackle criminal justice issues amid a national reckoning on racial injustice. “The danger,” law professor Mark Osler said, “is that they’ll replicate the mistake the past several administrations of never focusing on it until it’s too late and it’s a mess.”

While Biden didn’t campaign aggressively on the issue of clemency, the joint task force Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) assembled last summer proposed a 60-person agency independent of the DOJ, composed of people with diverse backgrounds to review cases.

clemencypitch180716Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee), who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee with jurisdiction over pardons, lobbied Obama and Trump to issue more pardons. He said he plans to do the same for Biden.

“There are… more and more people in jail, and a lot of those people have been there forever and they have been there for long draconian sentences,” Cohen said.

Ohio State University law prof Doug Berman counseled patience as the White House figures out a plan. But, he said, “taking a careful and deliberative process toward grander reform of the entire clemency process should not be an excuse for Prez Biden to hold back entirely on the use of his clemency pen…I am pretty confident that only a relatively little amount of time would be needed for members of the Biden team to identify at least a handful of compelling cases that could and should allow clemency grants” to be part of Biden’s first 100-day agenda.

Politico, Trump left behind a clemency mess. The clock’s ticking for Biden to solve it. (February 11, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, How about some clemency grants from Prez Biden while his team works on grander clemency plans? (February 11, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Let’s Get Moving, People! – Update for February 12, 2021

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.

LORD, GRANT ME PATIENCE… AND I WANT IT NOW

time210212With Biden in office, prisoners have been jamming my email inbox asking when President Biden will be tackling criminal justice reform. Everyone, including me, wants it now.

For that matter, people are asking whether the $1.9 trillion stimulus will include changes in compassionate release, CARES Act release and elderly offender home confinement. The answer: no one knows.

The stimulus bill’s details have not yet been released. For all we know, the details have not yet been written. We don’t know whether prisoners will qualify for the $1,400 stimulus. We don’t know about sentencing breaks, or extending home confinement past the end of the pandemic. The best estimates are that the text will be available some time in March.

advice210212The lack of action right now hasn’t stopped people from proposing what Biden should do. Reason magazine called for creation of a new pardon office, independent of the Justice Department, to handle clemency petitions at volume, with an eye toward cutting the sort of excessive drug sentences that both Obama and Trump criticized but did not address. Reason noted this wouldn’t require an act of Congress—just the will of a president able to admit the size and scope of the problem. Some Latino groups are proposing that Biden issue a mass presidential pardon for at least some of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.

Writing in The Hill, Marc Levin argued that among the most important items deserving action by the White House and Congress are abolition of drug mandatory minimums and allowing courts to take a second look at certain sentences after individuals have spent many years behind bars. Others include laws prohibiting prosecutors from contaminating the sentencing phase of a trial with references to acquitted conduct waiving federal laws that interfere with state legalization of medicinal or recreational marijuana.

There is no shortage of suggestions. It’s just no one knows when it’s going to happen.

Reason, A Practical Wish List for Joe Biden (February 1, 2021)

USA Today, A pardon for ‘Dreamers’? Some activists tout amnesty for undocumented immigrants if Congress doesn’t act (February 2, 2021)

The Hill, Build a bridge, not a wall, between administrations on justice reform (February 1, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

‘Danger, Danger!’ – Courts Grapple With Prisoners’ ‘Danger to the Community’ on Compassionate release – Update for February 11, 2021

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.

GUESS THEY MEANT WHAT THEY SAID…

saymean161103Part 1: About 80 days ago, the 6th Circuit ruled in United States v. Jones that because the Sentencing Commission – due to having too few members to even hold a meeting – had not been able to amend compassionate release policy statement § 1B1.13, district judges had no obligation to follow the old version of that Sentencing Guideline.

A little background: At the same time Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it established the Sentencing Commission. Among the Commission’s duties was a directive in 28 USC § 994(t) that it define in detail what constituted an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction (what we commonly call compassionate release).

The Commission’s response was policy statement § 1B1.13, which faithfully adhered to the statute by – among other things – directing that a compassionate release could only be requested by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. After all, that was what 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) said at the time. But in 2018, Congress change the statute in the First Step Act to permit prisoners to bring their own motions for compassionate release if the BOP turned down their request for the agency to do so.. Of course, the BOP turned everyone down: Mother Teresa herself could not have wrangled a compassionate release motion out of the Director.

motherteresa210211Normally, the Sentencing Commission would have amended § 1B1.13 in due course, updating it to reflect that compassionate release motions may be coming from inmates as well as the rare filing by the Director of the BOP. However, the Sentencing Commission was having its own crisis at the time. Three members left the Commission at the end of 2018 when their terms expired, and President Trump had not nominated any replacements. When he finally came up with a few names months later, the Senate never got around to confirming them. As a result, the Commission has lacked a quorum for two years now, and has been able to do absolutely nothing.

Thus, we have a revised compassionate release statute on the books, but an enabling policy statement that is still rooted in the Dark Ages.

That old policy statement set restrictive definitions as to what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for a reduction, and said that any reason other than those listed in § 1B1.13 had to be approved by the Director. As well, § 1B1.13 required the judge – among other things – to determine that the prisoner “is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).”

That brings you up to date. Now, for today’s case:

Jones described a three-step process for deciding compassionate release motions: First, a prisoner must show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. If that showing is made, the movant must then show that the motion is consistent with any applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. If he or she crosses that hurdle, the prisoner must finally show after considering the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a), the court ought to grant the motion. Jones’s three-step came with one big asterisk: where prisoners were moving for compassionate release on their own – instead of the motion being brought by the BOP Director – the courts should skip Step Two.

Paul Sherwood filed for compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), claiming that COVID-19, coupled with his age and medical condition, constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. He claimed that the 18 USC § 3553(a) factors also weighed in favor of grant. The government admitted Paul’s medical conditions satisfied the “extraordinary and compelling” threshold, but it argued that his possession of prohibited sex images (read that as “kiddie porn”) meant he “remained a danger to the community, and that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against release.” The district court agreed in a two-line order that Paul “has failed to demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community. Not only was he convicted of possession… but he was convicted of transportation as well.”

pornC160829Last week, the 6th Circuit reversed the district court, telling everyone it meant what it said in Jones: § 1B1.13 is to be ignored. “While a brief order may well be sufficient for purposes of denying compassionate release,” the Circuit wrote, “where the order relies exclusively on an impermissible consideration, we must vacate the order and remand the case for further consideration.” The 6th admitted that the district judge could consider whether Paul had a “propensity to be a danger to the community upon release, as well as the nature and circumstances of his offense,” and it even presumed that “the district court’s initial balancing of the § 3553(a) factors during Paul’s sentencing remains an accurate assessment as to whether those factors justify a sentence reduction…”

In other words, the Circuit telegraphed to the district court that it didn’t expect the outcome to be any different after remand, only the process used to get there.

Despite its expectations, “because the district court relied on § 1B1.13(2) as the sole basis for denying Sherwood compassionate release,” the 6th remanded the so that the district court could decide whether the § 3553(a) factors alone weighed in favor of Sherwood’s release, without considering “danger to the community.”

Part 2: In early December, the 4th Circuit ruled in United States v. McCoy that § 1B1.13 should be ignored, and – additionally – that district courts could even consider disproportionately long sentences as reasons for compassionate release.

danger210211Paul Kratsas has spent nearly three decades in prison for a non-violent drug offense committed in Maryland. He moved for a sentence reduction, arguing that he would not get a mandatory life sentence if convicted today, and that his record of achievement in prison showed rehabilitation. The government, predictably enough, argued that there was nothing extraordinary or compelling in Paul’s showing, and anyway, he had not shown he would not be a danger to the community (even after 30 years in prison).

The district court noted that even under current law, Paul would qualify as a career offender, but “with good time credits, he has already served more than the bottom of those guidelines.” District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow obviously concluded that United States v. McCoy meant what it said. She held:

It is time to recognize that both the law and Mr. Kratsas have changed over the last three decades. His youthful refusal to acknowledge his guilt – or to accept punishment – has given way to reflective maturity. His positive attitude while in prison is demonstrated by the myriad courses, programs, and activities he has completed successfully, earning him transfer to a low security facility and the support of his mentor and family. He has demonstrated that he is not likely to be a danger to society due to his insights into his personal responsibility and the release plan he has offered. He is to be commended for his refusal to lose hope.

Paul went home last Friday… for the first time since 1992.

United States v. Sherwood, Case 20-4085, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (6th Cir., February 2, 2021)

United States v. Kratsas, Case No. DKC 92-208, 2021 U.S. List. LEXIS 13313 (D.Md., January 25, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Resentencing Good Fortune Can’t Be Bootstrapped Into a New 2255 – Update for February 8, 2021

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.

GOING BACK TO THE WELL

nogoingback210208Any federal prisoner who has filed a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255 knows that the § 2255 remedy – a powerful way to get as conviction overturned or sentence vacated – is pretty much a one-and-done thing: you can’t file a second § 2255 without permission from a court of appeals (pursuant to 28 USC § 2244). Getting that permission is a pretty tall order, requiring that you show there’s a new Supreme Court decision that the Court has decided should be applied retroactively to cases already decided, or you have some newly-discovered evidence that is so boffo that the jury would have acquitted you and the judge himself would have driven you home.

Charlie Armstrong thought he had found a work-around that would let him file a second § 2255 without having to jump through the § 2244 hoop. After being convicted and imprisoned on a marijuana charge, Charlie found himself to be the beneficiary of the Sentencing Commission’s 2014 reduction of drug-crime scoring for Guidelines sentence. The change was essentially an across-the-board reduction of two levels, and people already sentenced were allowed to apply two their sentencing judges for discretionary resentencing applying the 2-level reduction under the procedure laid out in 18 USC § 3582(c)(2).

After his conviction but before the 2014 Guidelines reduction, Charlie filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. While the § 2255 motion was pending, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, and after Charlie applied to his sentencing court, his judge cut his sentence by 25%.

mulligan190430Some time later, the district court got around to denying Charlie’s § 2255 motion (which, alas, is the fate of most such motions). Charlie promptly filed a second § 2255, challenging his newly-reduced sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of his attorney. Charlie explained that he didn’t need § 2244 permission to file the new motion, because his 2-level reduction was a new, intervening judgment giving him the right to challenge the new sentence with a § 2255, essentially giving him a § 2255 mulligan.

The district court disagreed, and dismissed the new § 2255 petition as a second or successive motion.

The 2010 Supreme Court Magwood v. Patterson decision held that if “there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two [§ 2255] petitions, an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not second or successive.” With this opinion in hand, Charlie appealed the district court’s denial, arguing his 2-level reduction was the exactly the kind of new judgment Magwood had in mind.

doover210208Last week, the 11th Circuit turned him down. The Circuit said that in Magwood, the sentencing court “conducted a full resentencing and reviewed the aggravating evidence afresh,” the 11th said, giving the sentencing judge a chance to commit new errors or to repeat the same errors as in the original sentence. But a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction “does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding.” Instead, it simply “provides for the ‘modification of a term of imprisonment’ by giving courts the power to ‘reduce’ an otherwise final sentence in circumstances specified by the Commission.”

Armstrong v. United States, Case No 18-13041, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3265 (11th Cir., February 5, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root