We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
A SERIOUS COLLISION AT THE “INTERSECTION OF LAW AND SCIENCE”
In yesterday’s Dilbert, the Pointy-Headed Boss complaining, “If I thought data would influence my decision, I wouldn’t let you gather it.” The Boss should lobby for a seat on the 6th, 8th, or 10th Circuit. He’d feel right at home.
Compassionate release decisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) last week from those three courts were overly deferential to district court decisions that are at odds with the facts (the data, as it were).
In the 10th Circuit, Adam Hemmelgarn said his mild asthma, a cyst on his lungs, and an array of physical effects from his prior COVID illness put him at risk if he contracted it again. His district court denied him relief, holding that the fact Adam had contracted COVID once and recovered suggested his medical condition did not place him at high risk of severe illness.
On appeal, Adam pointed to CDC guidance that one could catch a more severe case of COVID even after recovering from a prior infection. But the 10th Circuit, with remarkable circular reasoning, ruled that “the district court’s statement that Hemmelgarn recovered from COVID-19 despite his medical conditions is simply consistent with the view that those conditions do not place him at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Thus, this finding of fact is not clearly erroneous.”
The holding overlooks Adam’s point. It ignored the CDC warning Adam cited in his brief that “you can contract COVID-19 more than once, with more severity each time.” And of course, the decision ignores the inconvenient fact that in 64% of the 33 cases of BOP inmates whose deaths have been announced since March 1, 2021, the inmates who died of COVID had had previous coronavirus cases and recovered without serious effects (or at least, without effects as serious as dying, which is what happened the second time around).
In the 8th Circuit, Andrew Marcussen’s district court found he suffered from “COPD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, prediabetes, BPH, GERD, seborrheic dermatitis and obesity.” Despite Andy’s infirmities sounding like a medical school final exam, the district court concluded his “underlying medical conditions, in combination with the COVID-19 pandemic, are not ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a sentence reduction.” This, the district judge wrote, was because of the “well-controlled nature of Defendant’s COPD and hypertension.”
On appeal, the government conceded that based on CDC guidance, Andy’s COPD and obesity qualified as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. But the appeals court didn’t care about the DOJ’s admission. Compassionate release “requires a judicial determination of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ based on an inmate’s unique circumstances,” the court said. “That determination is not governed by the Executive Branch, either the CDC’s general pronouncements relating to COVID-19 risks, or a United States Attorney’s ‘concession’. Those are of course relevant opinions, but they do not control the district court’s exercise of discretion.”
The Pointy-Headed Boss couldn’t have said it any better. You wonder where Scott Adams gets his material? One might be forgiven for wondering… if the record does not cabin the court’s discretion, then what does?
Before the district court, the government vigorously argued that Adam’s COPD and high BMI were not extraordinary and compelling reasons. It only changed its mind on appeal. Shouldn’t the district court get a second whack at the issue knowing the government agreed with the defendant? Any lawyer with a bar license on which the ink has dried knows that the government’s position on a matter before the court – especially in a criminal case – has an outsized influence on the court’s perception of an issue. The 8th’s implication that the government’s position had no influence on the district court’s decision is laughable.
More to the point, the issue is not whether Adam’s medical conditions are well-controlled absent Adam catching COVID. Instead, the question is whether obesity and COPD (not to mention everything else) will make matters worse if he does catch COVID. It’s like saying that a heart weakened by multiple heart attacks is well-controlled with meds and a pacemaker, so there’s nothing wrong with the patient running the Boston Marathon.
Finally, the 6th Circuit ruled that the fact that Michael Lemon is vaccinated ought to be ‘game, set, and match’ in denying his compassionate release motion:
“Following full vaccination, it is now well understood, both the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 and the associated risks should one contract the virus are significantly reduced,” the Circuit ruled, citing the CDC. Thus, Mike’s “access to the COVID-19 vaccine substantially undermines his request for a sentence reduction. To that end, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that a defendant’s incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic — when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 vaccine — does not present an “extraordinary and compelling reason” warranting a sentence reduction… After all, with access to the vaccine, an inmate largely faces the same risk from COVID-19 as those who are not incarcerated. To be sure, inmates in some respects face social distancing challenges distinct from those of the general public (although perhaps not entirely unlike students in dorm rooms, individuals in medical and assisted care facilities, and even residents of densely occupied apartment complexes). But to the extent prisons do offer some unique challenges, the vaccine now significantly reduces the risks associated with COVID-19.”
The 6th calls this the “intersection of law and science.” But a lot of collisions happen at intersections. This decision comes only a week or so after a CDC report admitted that 70% of vaccinated inmates in a study group last August at an unidentified Texas BOP facility (it was FCI Texarkana) tested positive for COVID-19, not to new mention studies that vaccine life is a lot shorter than first thought.
In short, the evolving science provides scant support for a lot of faith in vaccines. They’re way better than nothing, but not nearly the pandemic antidote the courts say they are.
United States v. Hemmelgarn, Case No. 20-4109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30221 (10th Cir., October 8, 2021)
United States v. Marcussen, Case No. 20-2507, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30109 (8th Cir., October 7, 2021)
United States v. Lemons, Case No 21-5313, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30267 (6th Cir., October 8, 2021)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant Infections Among Incarcerated Persons in a Federal Prison — Texas, July–August 2021 (September 24, 2021)
– Thomas L. Root
In Supreme Court-speak, a “relist” is a petition for certiorari that is neither granted nor denied, but rather held over for consideration at a subsequent conference of justices, some with the court issued a “CVSG” (a “call for the views of the Attorney General”). A petition is usually “relisted” because of debate among the justices as to its merit. With only four votes required for grant of certiorari, being “relisted” substantially increases the chances that a petition will be granted, and the case set for briefing. 
