Tag Archives: compassionate release

BOP: Not a ‘Common Jailor’ But A Pretty Indifferent One – Update for June 3, 2022

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

WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE?

Complaints about the BOP healthcare system are as common as kvetching about the food it serves. There may be a reason for that.

chickie220603Vincent “Chickie” DeMartino, serving the final 30 months of a 300-month sentence for an attempted mob hit, sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) because of his deteriorating health – in particular, complications with his right eye – and because of the BOP’s “cavalier attitude” in addressing his worsening medical problems.

Vince argued that his poor health and the BOP’s refusal to do anything about it constituted the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons required by the statute for a reduction of his sentence to time served.

Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed. As the Daily News colorfully put it

A Brooklyn judge sprang a violent mobster from prison because he said the federal Bureau of Prisons did a lousy job taking care of the wiseguy’s medical problems.

Federal Court Judge Raymond Dearie issued a scathing ruling Thursday, saying the feds weren’t competently treating made man Vincent “Chickie” DeMartino’s maladies. The goodfella had more than two years left of his 25-year sentence for an attempted hit on a fellow Colombo family member.

The Court found that Vince suffered from high blood pressure which puts him at severe risk of stroke and numerous ophthalmologic issues. Vince said he was essentially blind in his right eye and had 20/400 vision overall, which made him legally blind.

healthcare220224What made his condition “all the more extraordinary and compelling,” the Court held, was “the BOP’s lack of responsiveness and candor with respect to his medical conditions.” Despite the BOP being aware of the condition, the District Court said, “the record reflects a consistent pattern on the part of the BOP of downplaying Mr. DeMartino’s conditions and delaying treatment. Despite the severity of his ocular conditions, it has been a herculean task for Mr. DeMartino to see an ophthalmologist.”

A month ago, the Court told the parties that Vince required “immediate appropriate care.” The government promised the Court that Vince would see an outside specialist right away. That of course did not happen. Vince’s prior visits to the eye doc had been canceled, according to the BOP, because the facility Health Administrator asserted that the “retina specialist does not need to see the defendant again unless he is having further complications.”

This statement, charitably put, lacked the kind of candor that the government would have demanded from Vince, were the tables turned.. The Court found the statement to be “misleading, as the Health Administrator’s note omitted reference to the ophthalmologist’s recommendation that Mr. DeMartino undergo pars plana vitrectomy surgery.”

When the Court ordered the Government and BOP to provide clarification about Vince’s need for surgery from the same ophthalmologist who had recommended surgery, the Government pulled the old “bait-and-switch.” It provided a memorandum from an optometrist – not an ophthalmologist and definitely not the one who had recommended the surgery – to support the appalling lack of care. The BOP optometrist said Vince’s surgery was unnecessary, but then qualified his opinion by admitting that he could not “directly determine the need, or lack thereof, for surgery” and would need to “defer questioning related to a need for surgery and/or the urgency of surgery to an ophthalmologic surgeon.”

That’s sort of like saying “it’s definitely not going to rain tomorrow, but I have not seen a weather forecast and even if I had, I’m not a meteorologist and I really have no idea whether what I just said is right or not.”

healthbareminimum220603“All told,” the court ruled, “this record leaves the Court with the impression that the BOP has undertaken the bare minimum of care for Mr. DeMartino, limiting its efforts to ensuring that he does not require emergency surgery, but minimizing the fact that his vision is failing and refusing to implement any meaningful plan to monitor or treat the conditions in the longer term… The BOP is not a common jailor. Theirs is a far more challenging and vital responsibility. Human beings are entrusted to their care for decades on end. There is no excuse for inaction or dissembling and, in this Court’s view, no alternative to immediate release.”

Order (ECF 276), United States v. DeMartino, Case No 1:03cr265 (EDNY, May 26, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Cleaning Up Before The Long Weekend – Update for May 27, 2022

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 ACADEMIC

Study Finds Judges Inconsistent in Granting Compassionate Release: lawyerjoke180807Only a lawyer (or brilliant law student in this case) could require 44 pages and 194 footnotes to conclude the obvious: district courts are all over the map on granting or denying compassionate release due to the inmate’s vaccination status.

A Columbia Law Review Note published last week finds “disparate outcomes resulting from the vast judicial discretion within the compassionate release space” on the treatment of compassionate release movants on the basis of their vaccination status. The Note “argues that the current system results in inequitable geographical-based outcomes” and “calls on the United States Sentencing Commission to offer guidance to federal courts on how to approach compassionate release requests in the context of the First Step Act and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.”

Columbia Law Review, Unequal Treatment: (In)compassionate Release from Federal Prison in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccine (May 13, 2022)

Have You Kissed Your Public Defender Today? An Urban Institute study released last week found that defendants represented by Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys (those appointed by the court) and private counsel have 18-25% greater odds of being sent to prison once convicted than those represented by a federal public defender. What’s more, “individuals represented by private and CJA panel attorneys received 4-8% longer sentences than those who used a public defender.”

lovelawyer220527

The study concludes that because federal public defenders have “specific expertise in federal criminal cases and more familiarity with the judges and prosecutors,” they may be “more likely to encourage their clients to take plea deals but may also secure their clients favorable sentencing outcomes.”

Urban Institute, Counsel Type in Federal Criminal Court Cases, 2015-18 (May 18, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

A Couple of Short Takes – Update for May 19, 2022

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

TIME ENOUGH FOR A QUICKIE…

Quickie #1 – FAMM Lobbies for Compassionate Release for Dublin Victims: In a letter sent last week to Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, FAMM President Kevin Ring asked the Dept of Justice to recommend compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to female Bureau of Prisons inmates who suffered sexual assault at hands of FCI Dublin corrections officials and officials.

compassion210903The letter notes that the BOP has statutory authority under U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 to identify “’other reasons,’ that alone or in combination with recognized criteria merit compassionate release. Sexual assault by BOP personnel of incarcerated women is an exceptional abuse of trust. The trauma resulting from such victimization is without doubt an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying consideration for compassionate release.”

FAMM, Letter to Lisa Monaco (May 9, 2022)


supervisedrevoked181106Quickie # 2 – Supervised Release Violations as Double Punishment: In a first comprehensive analysis of “criminal violations” and supervised release – cases where people violate their supervision by committing new crimes – Penn State law professor Jacob Schuman argues that revocation for criminal conduct inflicts unfair double punishment and erodes constitutional rights. When defendants on supervised release commit new crimes, he writes, prosecution without revocation is a better and fairer way to punish them.

Virginia Law Review, Criminal Violations (Feb 15, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Compassionate Release Numbers Show Gross Disparities – Update for May 17, 2022

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

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AIN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE

funwithnumbers170511A Sentencing Commission report issued last week chronicled a slow but consistent slide in the rate of compassionate release motions being granted by district courts, even while highlighting how inconsistencies among federal courts are resulting in gross sentence disparities.

The First Step Act granted the right to prisoners to file their own motions for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For the 30 years prior to that, only the Bureau of Prisons was permitted to file on behalf of the prisoner, and – unsurprisingly – the BOP was greatly disinclined to ask any court to let any of its wards go home early.

In the year following First Step’s passage, around 450 compassionate release motions were filed. But in April 2020, with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the numbers skyrocketed. Nearly as many compassionate release motions were filed in April 2020 (436) as in all of the 15 prior months. By July 2020, over 1,500 a month were being submitted.

Everyone was scared. But as COVID became more common, the monthly numbers declined. In September 2020, 1,363 were filed, with 19% granted. A year later (September 2021), 456 motions were filed with 11% granted.

The report highlights striking variations in grant rates among the 94 federal districts. Oregon repudiates its nickname of The Land of Hard Cases, remaining the best place, statistically, to file. Of 144 motions, 63% have been granted. The back of the pack includes Western North Carolina (only 3.4% of 534 granted), Eastern Texas (2.0% of 349 granted) and Southern Georgia (2.0% of 248 granted). The average grant rate since the First Step Act permitted the filing of compassionate release motions by inmates themselves is 17.2% out of 3,867 motions.

oregon220517Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman noted in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that “the District of Maryland — with a total of 211 sentencing reduction motions granted (though “only” a grant rate of 32.7% with 646 motions) — granted more of these motions than all the courts of the Fifth Circuit!” The 5th Circuit has the lower grant rate (9.3% of the 2,197 total brought) of all the circuits.

Not surprisingly, the longer one has been in prison, the better the chances for compassionate release. People with sentences over 20 years had a 26.2% grant rate, compared to a 3.8% grant rate for people with a sentence of 24 months or fewer. But here’s a strange inversion: people with lowest criminal history had a 30.0% grant rate, while those with a moderate history only had a 12% grant rate. But inmates with the worst history had a grant rate of 29.2%, almost as good as those with no prior convictions.

But the most beneficial information in the Report is the list of reasons that compassionate release motions were denied. Courts found that 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the need to protect the public required denial in 33.1% of all compassionate release motions. Behind that were the movants’ failure to show they were at risk from COVID factors or a serious medical condition (26.4%), followed by failure to exhaust administrative remedies (17.9%). These amounted to nine out of ten reasons for denial (the courts failed to list reasons in 10% of the cases).

dice161221If it provides no other benefit, the Report suggests that compassionate release – far from being the relief First Step Act intended – has become an enormous geographical crapshoot, and a driver of sentence disparity.

US Sentencing Commission, Compassionate Release Data Report – Fiscal Years 2020 to 2021 (May 8, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Sentencing Commission releases latest detailed “Compassionate Release Data Report” (May 9, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Courts Questioning BOP Medical Care As COVID Surge Loom – LISA Newsletter for May 9, 2022

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

COVID SURGE FORECAST AS BOP’S RESPONSE QUESTIONED

The Biden administration is warning the nation could see 100 million COVID infections and a potentially significant wave of deaths this fall and winter, driven by new omicron subvariants that have shown a troubling ability to overcome vaccines and natural immunity.

The projection is part of an Administration push to persuade lawmakers to appropriate billions more to purchase a new tranche of vaccines, tests and therapeutics, released last Friday as the nation is poised to reach a milestone of 1 million COVID deaths sometime this week.

omicron211230Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 are causing a spike in cases in South Africa, where it’s winter, continuing a pattern of semi-annual COVID-19 surges there. The genetic makeup of these variants — which allows them to evade immunity from previous infection — and the timing of their emergence in the Southern Hemisphere point to a surge in the United States in the coming months, says UCLA Health clinical microbiologist Dr. Shangxin Yang.

The US also should expect a summer coronavirus surge at least across the South. Last week, former White House COVID response task force coordinator Deborah Birx said, “We should be preparing right now for a potential surge in the summer across the southern United States because we saw it in 2020 and we saw it in 2021.” With more infections come more opportunities for the virus to mutate, according to WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove.

As it is, an anticipated summer surge of COVID in the south may have begun. The seven-day national average of new infections more than doubled in five weeks from 29,000 on March 30 to nearly 71,000 last Friday. White House officials have said they’re concerned that much of the nation’s supply of antivirals and tests will be exhausted as a result of the anticipated increase in cases in the South. Without those tools, they say the country would be unprepared for a fall and winter surge, and deaths and hospitalizations could dramatically increase.

healthcare220224Predictions of future COVID waves come as the Bureau of Prisons’ COVID medical care is subjected to fresh criticism. Healthcare news outlet Stat reported last week that since November 2020, the BOP “used just a fraction of the antiviral drugs they were allocated to keep incarcerated people from getting seriously ill or dying of Covid-19.” Stat said internal BOP records show the Bureau used less than 20% of the stock “of the most effective antiviral drugs for treating COVID.”

In the case of Pfizer’s effective antiviral pill, Paxlovid, BOP prescription records over the two years ago “include just three prescriptions for Paxlovid, despite the fact that the drug is easy to administer and has been proven to significantly reduce hospitalization and death from Covid-19.”

Two compassionate release grants last week under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) on opposite sides of the nation suggest that district courts may be tiring of the BOP’s blandishments that its medical care is adequate. In Oregon, a granted early release to James Wood, a 53-year-old man who had served 68% of his sentence for two bank robberies. The court held Jim had served significant periods during the pandemic without access to his psychiatric medication or received medication that made his symptoms worse.

The judge called Jim’s time at FCI Sheridan during the pandemic “an excruciating experience.” In addition to frequent lockdowns, which applied to all inmates, Jim suffered an injury that prison medical services failed to treat. The injury festered, but Jim was finally able to knock back the infection by pouring hot water on the wound.

The government argued that medical records did not substantiate that Jim had been denied treatment. He replied that that was unsurprising inasmuch as the medical staff refused to do anything, a refusal that would not have generated a record.

toe220509Meanwhile, a Connecticut federal court released Tim Charlemagne, who was doing time for a drug offense, after finding “the record… demonstrates that Mr. Charlemagne has received inadequate care for his serious medical conditions since the day he began his period of incarceration.”

Those conditions included morbid obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Tim didn’t receive the foot care in prison that his podiatrist recommended when he was sentenced, and all the toes on his right foot had been amputated as a result, according to the Federal Public Defender. The government argued that Tim was being transferred to a medical center from FCI Schuykill (where he presumably would get better care), but it admitted no date set was set for the transfer.

Tim had served 14 months of his 41-month sentence. He will do another nine months on home confinement before beginning his supervised-release term.

Both of these decisions are noteworthy because they combine a general acknowledgment of miserable prison conditions during the pandemic with specific findings that BOP healthcare had failed the inmates seeking compassionate release. The cases suggest that successful compassionate release motions as COVID surges again will focus on an inmate’s individual allegations of inadequate medical care.

Washington Post, Coronavirus wave this fall could infect 100 million, administration warns (May 6, 2022)

US News, New Omicron Subvariant Spreading in US as Coronavirus Cases Increase (May 2, 2022)

UCLA Health, New omicron variants and case surge in South Africa portend summer rise in COVID-19 cases here (May 6, 2022)

Stat, Prisons didn’t prescribe much Paxlovid or other Covid-19 treatments, even when they got the drugs (May 5, 2022)

Portland Oregonian, Judge grants compassionate release to convicted bank robber, calls his time at Oregon’s federal prison ‘excruciating experience’ (May 6, 2022)

United States v. Wood, Case No 3:18-cr-00599 (D.Ore, compassionate release granted May 6, 2022)

Windsor Journal-Inquirer, Judge orders release of Windsor man in Enfield OD death case (May 6, 2022)

United States v. Charlemagne, Case No 3:18-cr-00181, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82270 (D.Conn, May 6, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Acquitted Conduct No Panacea for Current Prisoners – Update for April 14, 2022

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 AND THE HOPEMONGERS

The House of Representatives’ passage of the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (H.R. 1621) ten days ago appears to be chum on the water for some hope-mongering sharks who prey on inmates.

shark170607I already have heard from one person who is busy hiring an outside “research” service to evaluate his case to tell him whether he’ll benefit from the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act. For everyone’s benefit, here are two things to keep in mind.

First, the Act has not passed the Senate. It may. It may not. It may pass, but with different text, and then a conference committee will have to work out compromise text.

Second, the Act will apply to very few cases. It does not necessarily apply to relevant conduct. It does not apply to conduct not mentioned to a jury. If you did not have a jury trial, it does not apply (unless you were acquitted of the same conduct in a prior federal or state trial).

Finally, it is very unlikely that the Act will be retroactively applied to people already sentenced. The bill does not specify that it applies retroactively. Such bills are usually presumed not to be retroactive. Read 1 USC § 109 and Dorsey v. United States before you decide the courts will open their doors to post-conviction motions seeking resentencing because Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act passes.

No reputable legal services company will take any money now to tell you whether you can get any sentencing benefit from the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act. It’s just too premature.

Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (HR 1621)

Dorsey v. United States, 567 US 260 (Supreme Ct., 2012)

SPEAKING OF PREMATURE…

George Fower was sentenced to 24 months, but before he self-surrendered to the Bureau of Prisons, he sought compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) on the grounds he was very susceptible to COVID. Because he was not yet in prison, George found the statute’s administrative exhaustion requirement challenging, but he wrote to the warden of the prison to which he was to surrender in a month’s time, and later to the BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center, the Regional Director and the Bureau of Prisons General Counsel.

Thirty days later (while still not in custody), George filed his compassionate release motion. The district court denied it, holding in part that “compassionate relief is not available to a defendant not in custody.”

Last week, the 9th Circuit agreed. It noted that the First Step Act amended the compassionate release statute only to allow the prisoner, rather than requiring BOP, to file the motion. At no time in the history of the “matrix of statutory and other enactments,” the Circuit said, were the BOP’s powers ever extended to grant it jurisdiction over those who had yet to commence their incarceration.

compassion160208It makes sense that the BOP has no place to play in compassionate release prior to a prisoner’s incarceration, the 9th noted. “The statute states that the defendant’s request must be addressed to ‘the warden of defendant’s facility,’ which cannot be known until there has been a designation by the BOP. This is further evidence that the statute contemplates that the defendant must be in a BOP facility before qualifying for compassionate relief.”

The 9th suggests that before a defendant self-surrenders, he or she may ask the district court to delay sentencing or to extend the surrender date.

United States v. Fower, Case No 21-50007, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8919 (9th Cir., April 4, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID Isn’t Over, And Neither Should Be Compassionate Release – Update for March 22, 2022

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

DON’T GIVE UP ON COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

“A triumphant President Joe Biden all but announced an end to the pandemic in the USA on Sunday… declared that the U.S. had achieved “independence” from the coronavirus…”

deadcovid210914Really? Is COVID over? Well, that quote would suggest it, except that Biden said that about nine months ago. A month after the Prez did his victory dance, COVID Delta blasted through FCI Texarkana, followed by the rest of the BOP. And that was only a prelude to Omicron, that at one point had 9,500 inmates sick at the same time.

As of last week, a surge in the new COVID variant BA.2 in Western Europe had experts and health authorities on alert for another wave of the pandemic in the USA. BA.2, even more contagious than the original strain, BA.1, is fueling the outbreak overseas, and will be here soon, experts say.  Last Sunday’s Times said, “Another COVID surge may be coming. Are we ready for it?”

At the same time, the number of prisoners in Bureau of Prisons custody increased by about 1,150 in the past month alone. Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that he

assumes this new data reflects some ‘return to normal’ operations for the federal criminal justice system, with fewer COVID-related delays in cases and prison admissions (and many fewer COVID-related releases) producing this significant one-month federal prison population growth. But, whatever the particulars, I will not forget that candidate Joe Biden promised to ‘take bold action to reduce our prison population” and to “broadly use his clemency power for certain non-violent and drug crimes.‘ Fourteen months into his administration, I am unaware of any bold action taken by Prez Biden and he has still yet to use his clemency power a single time, let alone broadly.

quit201208Prisoner numbers are the only thing going up. About 6,200 BOP employees left the agency in the last two years, which works out to almost nine people a day. 8.7 employees departing every day during that time period. The BOP refuses to give precise current numbers, but Insider magazine reported that from July 2021 to March 2022, it hired fewer than 2,000 replacements.

A BOP employee survey last year found that since the pandemic began, the “majority of respondents reported feeling increased stress or anxiety at work and being asked to perform tasks outside their normal duties.” Nearly one in three respondents who answered that they were stressed from the job reported that they have considered leaving the BOP, according to the survey.

Last week, the Dept of Justice released the promised memorandum ordering U.S. Attorneys not to require defendants to waive their right to file compassionate release motions as a condition of getting a plea deal. Notably, the DOJ told U.S. Attorneys that “if a defendant has already entered a plea and his or her plea agreement included a waiver provision of the type just described, prosecutors should decline to enforce the waiver. “

All this means compassionate release probably is far from over, both because of more COVID and as a means of addressing overcrowding. In a lot of places, it has played a role in correcting harsh sentences that could not be imposed today.

But not everywhere. The 11th Circuit is infamous for refusing judges the discretion to use sentences that could not be imposed today as a reason for compassionate release. Last week, the 8th Circuit made clear it had joined the 11th.

Antonio Taylor was convicted of nine offenses, three of which were 18 USC § 924(c) violations. The § 924(c) law at the time required consecutive prisons terms of 5, 25, and 25 years for the violations years. Tony got sentenced to 60 years (720 months).

The First Step Act changed the law so that the harsh consecutive sentences could not be imposed. If James had been sentenced after First Step passed, he would have faced 18 years, not 60. Tony filed for compassionate release in 2020, arguing the harshness and unfairness of his sentence. Similar arguments have won in a number of other circuits, starting with the 2nd Circuit in September 2020’s Brooker decision.

compassionlimit220322The Circuit, following its February decision in United States v. Crandell, held that “that a non-retroactive change in law, whether offered alone or in combination with other factors, cannot contribute to a finding of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A).”

As it stands now, a nonretroactive change in sentencing law can win a prisoner a sentencing reduction if he or she was sentenced in federal court in any of nine circuits. As for the other three, the inmate is out of luck. This cries for Supreme Court resolution.

Bloomberg, Biden Declares Success in Beating Pandemic in July 4 Speech (July 4, 2021)

Washington Post, A covid surge in Western Europe has US bracing for another wave (March 16, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Federal prison population, now at 154,194, has grown by well over 1100 persons in a short month (March 18, 2022)

Business Insider, Federal prison working conditions are getting worse despite Biden’s promise to improve conditions, staffers say (March 18, 2022)

DOJ, Department Policy on Compassionate Release Waivers in Plea Agreements (March 11, 2022)

United States v. Taylor, Case No 21-1627 (8th Cir., March 18, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

‘Compassionate Release’ is as Arbitrary as it Seems, Sentencing Commission Suggests – Update for March 14, 2022

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

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE STATS ALL OVER THE MAP, SENTENCING COMMISSION REPORTS

shocked191024Everyone was shocked, shocked, I tell you, when the US Sentencing Commission reported last week that compassionate release since the passage of the First Step Act in December 2018 through the end of FY 2020 (September 30, 2020, has been largely a geographical crapshoot.

The 1st Circuit (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Massachusetts) had the highest compassionate release grant rate at 47.5%, while the 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana) was lowest at 13.7%. Second place for compassion went to the 9th at 37.3% with honorable mention to the 7th at 36.6%. The bottom dwellers included the 11th at 19.5% and 8th at 21.3% (although in fairness, no other Circuit came close to the 5th Circuit’s dismal approval rate).

Within all of the circuits, the best places to win compassionate release were Rhode Island (25 compassionate release motions granted out of 32 filed, or 78.1%), Connecticut (49 of 68 granted, for 72.1%), and Oregon (39 of 55 granted, for 70.9%). At the other end of the scale, South Dakota (0 out of 16, for 0.0%), Western District of North Carolina (3 of 172, for 1.7%), and Southern District of West Virginia (1 out of 40, or 2.5%), were the worst places to be.

(I have excluded districts where fewer than 10 motions were filed from this: otherwise, Puerto Rico was the best place, with 8 out of 9 granted (88.9%)).

The national average for compassionate release grants during the 2-year period was 25.7%. Courts granted 1,805 requests in fiscal year 2020 and 145 requests in FY 2019.

Age, original sentence length, and the amount of time already served emerged as the central factors affecting likelihood of a compassionate release grant.

usscgraph220314By contrast, an offender’s race, criminal history category, and offense of conviction generally appeared to have little impact on the likelihood of a compassionate release grant. Still, it is interesting that the offenses most likely to get compassionate release were immigration (50% of compassionate release motions granted), administration of justice (42% granted) and bribery/corruption (37.8%). The offenses with the worst odds were stalking/harassing (12.5%), sexual abuse (13.2%) and kidnapping (13.8%). Someone with a murder conviction was more likely to win compassionate release (19%) than one with a child pornography count (17.6%).

On average, prisoners granted relief had served 80 months and at least half of their sentences. The success rate was 57%for prisoners who had been sentenced to a year or less, 20% for prisoners with sentences between 120 and 240 months, and 30% for those who had been sentenced to 20 years or more. The average compassionate release sentence reduction was 59 months (42.6% of the original sentence).

The pandemic led to a surge in motions from prisoners who worried that they might die from COVID-19 contracted in the crowded conditions of their confinement. Courts received more than 7,000 motions – 96% of which were filed by prisoners – and granted a quarter of them. Judges cited COVID-19 risks in granting compassionate release 72% of the time.

The study makes clear that how federal courts apply 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) varies greatly, “underscoring the need to restore the U.S. Sentencing Commission,” Law360 said. “President Joe Biden, after a year in office, has yet to nominate new commissioners, keeping a potentially key player in justice reform on the sidelines.”

Individuals aged 75 or older, who make up a smaller portion of prison populations, were granted compassionate release at the highest rate — more than 60%. Courts granted compassionate release at the lowest rate — less than 20%— to people under the age of 45, according to the report. The most common reason for denying relief was failure to demonstrate an “extraordinary and compelling” reason (two-thirds of denials). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, cited in a third of cases, was the next most common reason.

Notably, “danger to the public” was cited less than a quarter of the time, “which makes you wonder about the public safety rationale for keeping most of these prisoners behind bars,” Reason magazine said. ‘The ages of many federal prisoners cast further doubt on that rationale, since recidivism declines sharply with age.”

compassion160124

The number of compassionate releases in 2020 was anomalously high because of the pandemic. “After the study period ended,” the USSC notes, “the number of offenders granted compassionate release substantially decreased.” Yet the 1,805 people who were granted compassionate release in 2020 represented just 1% of the federal prison population. Congress, which sets federal penalties, and President Joe Biden, who has the power to free any prisoner whose punishment he deems unjust and promised to “broadly use” that power but has not used it at all yet, might want to consider the possibility that there is room for a bit more compassion.

Law360, Compassionate Release Grants Vary Without Advisory Board (March 10, 2022)

Reason, Compassionate Releases of Federal Prisoners Surged During the Pandemic (March 11, 2022)

US Sentencing Commission, Compassionate Release – The Impact of the First Step Act and COVID-19 Pandemic (March 10, 2022)

Reuters, Conservative U.S. judicial regions less apt to grant inmates compassionate release -commission report (March 10, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Sample-ing a First Circuit Compassionate Release Win – Update for February 21, 2022

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

LET’S GO, BRANDON…

jrhigh220221I’m no fan of the current political meme “Let’s go, Brandon.” I think we can be critical of the incumbent President (or the former President, for that matter) without sounding like a lot of 7th-grade boys sitting in the back of the school bus.

But today, I mean it literally. Vermont-based Federal post-conviction attorney Brandon Sample (who has no connection with this blog other than the fact of his dedication to criminal defense and his skill in winning against sometimes-substantial opposition) swung for the fence on a First Circuit compassionate release appeal. Last week, he hit a walk-off homer.

Brandon’s client, Juan Ruvalcaba, was convicted of a sprawling drug-distribution conspiracy over 15 years ago and sentenced to life in prison. “Life” was the sentence that the 21 U.S.C. § 846 count required at that time because of Juan’s prior drug convictions.

In 2020, Juan asked his court for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) because of COVID and his medical condition. He also argued that the fact that the mandatory minimum sentence for his drug conviction had been changed by the First Step Act – being dropped from life to 25 years – was an additional extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.

henhouse180307A § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, for those of you who just came in, requires that a moving party show that there is one or more “extraordinary and compelling reason[s]” for a sentence reduction, and that, after considering the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a reduction is warranted. Time was only the Bureau of Prisons could bring such motions on behalf of inmates – sort of like letting the fox decide which chickens in the henhouse would be released to go “free-range” – but First Step changed that to let inmates file for compassionate release on their own.

The Sentencing Commission has defined what facts may constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons in a Policy Statement (USSG §1B1.13). However, because the Commission has been out of business for lack of a quorum since First Step changed the compassionate release statute in December 2018, the Policy Statement is still written as though only the BOP director is doing all of the filing.

Juan’s district court disagreed that the First Step change to his mandatory minimum could be an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. What’s more, the court held that it was obligated to follow the Sentencing Commission Policy Statement, which did not identify sentence length or a subsequent non-retroactive change in the sentencing statute as elements justifying a sentence reduction.

Brandon took Juan’s appeal to the 1st Circuit, and last week, that court joined a majority of other federal courts of appeal in holding that § 1B1.13 does not apply to prisoner-filed compassionate release motions. What’s more, the 1st Circuit ruled that a district court was free to consider that the prisoner is serving an over-long sentence that would not be mandatory had it been imposed after the First Step Act.

“The text of the current policy statement makes pellucid that it is ‘applicable’ only to motions for compassionate release commenced by the BOP,” the Circuit ruled. “To find the existing policy statement “applicable” to prisoner-initiated motions, we would need to excise the language referring to motions brought by the BOP. That would be major surgery and undertaking it would be well outside our proper interpretive province…. We may not ‘blue pencil’ unambiguous text to divorce it from its context.”

bluepencil220221The appeals court admitted that someday, the Sentencing Commission will be back in business and probably make § 1B1.13 relevant in a First Step world. Then, “district courts addressing such motions not only will be bound by the statutory criteria but also will be required to ensure that their determinations of extraordinary and compelling reasons are consistent with that guidance.” But until then, compassionate release will be interpreted “through the lens of the statutory criteria, subject to review on appeal.”

The 1st Circuit also held that an excessive sentence could be a reason for a sentence reduction, at least where a subsequent but non-retroactive change in the law had lowered a mandatory minimum. “Our view that a district court may consider the FSA’s prospective amendments to sentencing law as part of the ‘extraordinary and compelling’ calculus fits seamlessly with the history and purpose of the compassionate-release statute. In abolishing federal parole, Congress recognized the need for a ‘safety valve’ with respect to situations in which a defendant’s circumstances had changed such that the length of continued incarceration no longer remained equitable.”

Such a safety valve should “encompass an individualized review of a defendant’s circumstances and permit a sentence reduction — in the district court’s sound discretion — based on any combination of factors (including unanticipated post-sentencing developments in the law),” the Circuit ruled. Thus, a district court, reviewing a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate release in the absence of an applicable policy statement, may consider any “complex of circumstances raised by a defendant as forming an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting relief.”

Juan still has to sell his district court on the wisdom of granting any sentence reduction on remand, but – judging from his appellate win – he probably has the lawyer who can do it, if anyone can. Go, Brandon!

United States v. Ruvalcaba, Case No. 21-1064, 2022 U.S.App. LEXIS 4235 (1st Cir., February 15, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

7th Circuit Says ‘Follow Us, Not the Science’ in Compassionate Release Denial – Update for February 14, 2022

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

7TH CIRCUIT RAISES THE BAR (AGAIN) ON COVID COMPASSIONATE RELEASES

Junk Science210707The 7th Circuit has already handed down the scientifically dubious holdings that a prisoner who has gotten the vaccine should not be allowed to take advantage of 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release based on COVID dangers because “published data do not establish or imply an incremental risk for prisoners — either a risk of contracting the disease after vaccination or a risk of a severe outcome – if a vaccinated person does contract the disease” and that prisoners who have access to a vaccine cannot use the risk of COVID for compassionate release “unless they can demonstrate that they are medically unable to receive or benefit from the available vaccines.”

Last week, the Circuit went even further. Christopher Barbee appealed the denial of his compassionate release motion based on COVID risk factors and made a showing he remained at risk even after being vaxxed. Given the current number of breakthrough COVID cases in vaccinated people, it’s an argument that’s got some weight behind it.

But the 7th shot him down, holding that “although Barbee contends that he remains at risk as the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve, he has not presented any evidence establishing that he is more at risk for an adverse outcome in prison than he would be if released.”

So now prisoners in the 7th not only have to show prison is a dangerous place for COVID – and the stats say the COVID rate is four times the rate in prison than it is on the street, with one out of three BOP inmates having tested positive for COVID – but they have to show that home is much safer.

noplacelikehome200518Home is not any safer than prison. That is, if you live at home with 150 other people in one big room and you have workers coming in from the community three times a day. But for anyone else, home being safer than prison is an argument that’s self-evident.

It doesn’t matter in the 7th Circuit. Call it ‘Circuit 1, Science 0,’

United States v. Barbee, Case No 21-1356 (7th Cir., Feb. 11, 2022)

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Man is 16th to die from COVID-19 at Fort Worth prison; cases spike at women’s facility (Dec. 30, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root