Tag Archives: FIRST STEP Act

DOJ Says It Will Meet First Step Act July 19th Deadline for Risk System, Good Time Calculations – Update July 15, 2019

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.

WHO’DA THOUGHT?

The First Step Act set a hard deadline of 210 days after passage – July 19, 2019 – for recalculating the 7-days-a-year extra good time and for Dept of Justice to adopt a new risk assessment program to be used by the BOP.

deadline190715Now, against the odds, the Attorney General says DOJ and BOP will meet the July 19 deadline for extra good time and adoption of a risk assessment system, despite DOJ blowing the deadline for setting up a risk assessment committee last winter because of the government shutdown.

USA Today and the AP both report that DOJ is expected to lay out the risk assessment rules on July 19, as required by First Step.

Adoption of the risk assessment program is critical, because once it is in place, the BOP then has six months to roll out the programs it identifies as like to reduce recidivism. Eligible inmates taking those programs will earn additional good time at the rate of from 10 to 15 days a month.

No one yet knows what programs will be eligible, but First Step encourages the BOP to be expansive, maybe even including some kinds of inmate employment. Every day I hear from people wondering whether ACE (adult continuing education) or required GED classes or UNICOR employment or even prison orderly jobs will earn extra good time. No one yet knows. But with the risk assessment program in place, the BOP will begin to identify what will and will not count.

July 19th reportedly will see release of about 2,200 additional federal inmates based on the 7-days-a-year good time being awarded for every year of one’s sentence. Fox News reported last Monday that July “will see the largest group to be freed so far under a clause in the First Step Act that reduces sentences due to “earned good time.” In addition to family reunification, the formerly incarcerated citizens, 90 percent of whom have been African-American, hope to get employment opportunities touted by Trump last month at the White House as part of the “Second Chance” hiring program.”

norose190715All is not roses with the earned time program, however. FAMM president Kevin Ring said last week that more attention and money is needed to support the new programs. FAMM is also unhappy that a long list of inmates, including those convicted of terrorism, sex crimes, some gun offenses, some fraud crimes and a few drug offenses will be excluded from qualifying for earned time credits. “There is going to be some frustration,” Ring said.

Acting BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz also acknowledged that the exclusions represent a looming inmate management test for prison staffers. “How do you manage inmates who are getting the credits and those who are not? That will be a challenge as we roll this out,” Hurwitz said.

The roll-out comes at a time when the BOP is grappling with persistent staffing shortages. To make up for a shortage of COs, officials have ordered teachers, nurses, kitchen workers and other staffers to serve as correctional officers. The practice, known as augmentation, draws staff away from the kinds of programs that officials are now touting.

Newly-installed Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who toured FCI Englewood last week, admitted First Step provisions “will put additional demands” on prison staffers. He told USA Today that DOJ was reviewing staffing across the BOP, but he believed that current personnel levels were not jeopardizing safety.

multi190715“Everyone who is trained to work at a federal prison learns to participate in the security role,” Rosen said. “But we’re looking at that and plan to do whatever makes sense.”

A number of advocates, however, have called for stronger oversight of the implementation by both BOP and the AG’s office, and for more funding. “We have concerns it might not be implemented appropriately,” said Inimai Chettiar, legislative and policy director at the Justice Action Network.

USA Today, Roofing, paving, artisanal bread: Feds look to kick-start law that will free hundreds of inmates (July 11)

Aiken Standard, A.G. William Barr, Sens. Graham, Scott laud First Step Act during Edgefield prison visit (July 12)

Associated Press, Around 2,200 federal inmates to be released under reform law (July 13)

Fox News, Thousands of ex-prisoners to reunite with their families this month (July 8)

– Thomas L. Root

Judge Holds Change in Drug Sentence Minimums “Extraordinary” Grounds for Sentence Reduction – Update for July 10, 2019

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.

We’re back after a well-deserved week off in Iceland (where the country’s five prisons each house about 30 (not a typo) inmates, who make an average of 28,000 ISK ($290.00) a month.

COURT GRANTS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN DRUG MINIMUMS

A Houston federal district judge two weeks ago re-sentenced Arturo Cantu-Rivera to time served, negating two life sentences in a grant of an 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release motion.

Art was doing time on a drug charged, which had been enhanced by an 851 motion to mandatory life in 1990. The court cited his having completed over 4,000 hours of programming, his tutoring GED classes, his age of 69, and his health, calling all of this an “extraordinary degree of rehabilitation.”

extraordinary190710But as well, the judge noted that the change in the drug mandatory minimums under the First Step Act was part of the “extraordinary and compelling” analysis: “Finally, the Court recognizes as a factor in this combination the fundamental change to sentencing policy carried out in the First Step Act’s elimination of life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence solely by reason of a defendant’s prior convictions… The combination of all of these factors establishes the extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying the reduction in sentence in this case.”

Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. Canto-Rivera, Case No. H 89-204 (SD Tex, June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions Pass One Thousand – Update for June 12, 2019

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.

SENTENCING COMMISSION ISSUES CRACK RETROACTIVITY UPDATE

The Sentencing Commission last Friday issued a report on releases under the Fair Sentencing Act retroactivity granted by the First Step Act. Since First Step became law last December, the courts have granted 1,051 crack sentence reductions.

crackpowder160606The breakdown by district shows Middle and Southern Florida, South Carolina and Virginia are the places to be. Those five districts accounted for about 29% of all grants. One third of the 94 districts contributed only  2.5% of the total, with 20 districts not granting a single motion.

What was missing from the USSC analysis was a figure on the number of motions denied, which would have provided a much clearer picture of any discrepancies among the districts in how the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive reductions were being applied.

The sentence reductions averaged 29 months, with the 5th Circuit courts averaging the best at 35.3 months and the 1st Circuit being the worst at 22.6 months. Over 91% of all defendants getting time cuts are black.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions Retroactivity Data Report (June 7, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

First Step Tidbits – Update for June 5, 2019

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.

FIRST STEP ROUNDUP

Looking for a Loophole: First Step news from last week: First, a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks there is a magic potion that will make the sentencing changes in the First Step Act retroactive.

loophole190605As with most legislation the First Step Act represents countless compromises. Prominent among those were the deals made on retroactivity. The Act changed 18 USC § 924(c), which punishes people who use a gun in a drug crime or crime of violence with a mandatory consecutive term of five years (if the defendant was just carrying the gun), seven years (if the defendant brandished the gun) or 10 years (if the defendant actually shot it). All of that makes sense. The statute also imposes a mandatory consecutive 25 years on a defendant for a second conviction under 924(c).

The problem was lousy draftsmanship. Congress figured that it you got five years extra for a 924(c) conviction but did not learn your lesson, you ought to get a minimum 25 years on the second conviction. But the provision was written so that any subsequent conviction under 924(c) got you the enhanced time. Say that today you sell some dope on the street corner, with a gun stuffed in your pants. Then, tomorrow you do the same thing. The U.S. Attorney will charge you with two distribution counts and two 924(c) counts, one for each day. Before the First Step Act, you would get a sentence for the drugs, a consecutive five years for today’s 924(c) count, and a consecutive 25 years for tomorrow’s 924(c). That was not the way it was supposed to work, but U.S. Attorneys don’t care what Congress meant. They only care about what Congress wrote.

The First Step Act changed 924(c) to make it clear that the 25 years can be added only if you had already been convicted of the first 924(c) before you committed the second one. Likewise, it changed portions of 21 USC § 841(b)(1) to make the former mandatory life sentence into a 25-year sentence, and the former 20-year sentence into a 15-year sentence. But to sell some of the troglodytes in the Senate (yes, we mean you, Sen. Tom Cotton [R-Alabama]) on supporting First Step, the changes in the mandatory minimums were not made retroactive. Only the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act – which like First Step had the retroactivity taken out in order to rustle up enough support to pass the measure – was made retroactive in First Step.

trog190605Devan Pierson thought he could wriggle through a loophole. He got sentenced to life for a drug distribution case, due to his criminal history and the presence of guns. On appeal, he argued that because the First Step Act had made life sentences into 25-year maximum sentences, his life sentence – which was still on direct review – should be reduced.

Last Friday, the 7th Circuit disagreed. “Subsection 401(c) states that the amendments in that section ‘shall apply to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.’ In common usage in federal sentencing law, a sentence is “imposed” in the district court… In the First Step Act, Congress chose language that points clearly toward that same result: the date of sentencing in the district court controls application of the new, more lenient terms.”

* * *

Power of the Media: I wrote last week about some district courts holding that reductions in crack sentences under the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act must rely on the “offense controls” theory instead of the “indictment controls” theory. If you are in that kind of fix, it is good to have friends in the media.

In 1994, in the depths of the war on drugs, Sonny Mikell picked up a third federal drug conviction in Florida and was handed a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison. Although he was only found guilty for 50 grams by a jury, the sentencing judge agreed with the presentence report that held him culpable for 290 grams (for sentencing purposes).

When the First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, Sonny applied for relief. His sentencing judge granted it promptly, sending Sonny home right from the hearing. But the government appealed to the 11th Circuit, apparently intending to argue that the “offense controls” theory (and the 290 grams) should govern.

Stopthedrugwar.org picked up the story, and ran it week. Citizen Truth republished it. The next day, the government dismissed its appeal without explanation. Citizen Truth may not be Kim Kardashian, but it got the job done.

* * *

You’re My Bestie: Finally, the Daily Beast picked up the story of Rufus Rochell, a man from inauspicious circumstances who befriended Conrad Black when the two were together at FCI Coleman. Black, a wealthy Canadian publisher and friend of Trump, was pardoned by the President a few weeks ago.

bff190605Rufus and Conrad both worked in the education department, Rufus as a law clerk and Conrad as a tutor helping inmates study for their GEDs. “They had conversations about history and education. And they found humor in the subtle absurdities of prison life, such as the thunderous rain that fell whenever inmates were asked to report for lawn duty.”

When Conrad was released on bail after a favorable SCOTUS decision, a rumor spread that he had been arrogant and condescending as an inmate. At Conrad’s request, Rufus wrote a letter refuting the claim, and praising his selflessness.

Now that Conrad has been pardoned, Rufus is hoping for a break through the First Step Act or executive clemency, and is looking to Conrad for support. According to the Daily Beast, nothing has yet been forthcoming.

I have heard a lot of guys being released who promised to send friends money, to keep in touch, even get together after it was all over. It does not often happen. You would hope, however, that when someone is powerful, rich and close to power, especially when he himself has been blessed with good luck, such a promise would not be forgotten.

United States v. Pierson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16296 (7th Cir. May 31, 2019)

CitizenTruth.org, Why Are Prosecutors Trying to Send a First Step Act Ex-Prisoner Back to Prison? (May 28)

Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Mikell, Case No. 19-11459-G (11th Cir. May 29, 2019)

Daily Beast, Trump Pardoned Billionaire Conrad Black but Left His Prison Buddy Behind

– Thomas L. Root

Fair Sentencing Act Resentencing Takes Ominous Turn – Update for May 28, 2019

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.

INTRACTABLE PROBLEMS LOOM ON FAIR SENTENCING ACT RESENTENCINGS

A good number of crack defendant resentencings have breezed through district courts since the First Step Act authorized the retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) to people sentenced for crack prior to August 2010.

The concerns of a few dissident district judges, however, may be gaining traction, jeopardizing future FSA resentencings.

crackpowder160606The problem is this: Just about all of the pre-FSA indictments alleged the defendant had “five or more” or “fifty or more” grams of crack. Back then, five or more bought a defendant a minimum 5 years, while 50 or more was good for a 10-year minimum. But what the indictment alleges is one thing. What the presentencing report says is something else altogether, and the PSR’s amount of drugs (used for setting the Guidelines range) is what the district court usually finds.

On FSA resentencings, some defendants have convinced courts that if the indictment said “five or more grams” of crack, for instance, their sentences should be based on five grams. Some sentences have fallen dramatically as a result.

Dan Blocker argued to his judge that when a defendant seeks an FSA sentence reduction, the relevant question is not how much crack was involved in the offense, but instead only how much was charged in the indictment.

Some other courts have grappled with this argument, but Dan’s court took it by the horns. In an interim decision, the district court complained Dan’s approach – the “indictment-controls” theory – “misreads the statute and is demonstrably inconsistent with Congress’s intent.” The district judge said the First Step Act specified that a sentence reduction is allowed only for a “covered offense,” that is, “a violation of a Federal criminal statute…” Violation of the statute is the criminal conduct, the court said, not the indictment. Thus, the court must follow the offense-controls theory, not the indictment-controls theory.

Comparativecrack190425

The court said the question is what sentence would have been imposed had the FSA been in effect when Dan sold the crack. The answer, the court held, does not turn on what the actual indictment charged, but rather on what it would have charged had the FSA governed the case. The court speculated that if the FSA had been in effect, Count 1 would have charged that the conspiracy involved 280 grams or more, not just 50, and other counts would have charged the higher amounts – 28 grams and 280 grams – listed in the FSA. “The only reason the actual indictment used the lower amounts,” the court said, “was that those were the amounts included in the statute at that time – the indictment tracked the statute.”

The higher amounts might have affected Dan’s decision to plead guilty, the court said, thus requiring a hearing to figure out what Dan might have done in response to what the indictment might have said.

If what the indictment in a pre-August 2010 crack said controlled resentencing, the court complained, “every crack defendant sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act took effect would be eligible for a reduction…” and the First Step Act would “provide a windfall sentence reduction to pre-August 2010 defendants that people sentenced after 2010 would not get. “Congress could not have intended to treat crack defendants this much more favorably than powder defendants.

The so-called offense controls theory will almost certainly be appealed. Major appeals questions about retroactive FSA resentencings, even if resolved in the defendants’ favors, are likely to result in inconsistent circuit decisions, and could tie up resentencings for a year or better.

United States v. Blocker, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79934 (N.D.Fla., Apr. 25, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

The “Closer to Home” Illusion – Update for May 20, 2019

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.

BOP DOES NOT HAVE TO WALK 500 MILES

aardvark190520There is not a single inmate in the federal prison system who would not be willing to walk, roll or crawl 500 miles to be home right now. Any no one on the outside is so hard-hearted that he or she cannot concede that housing inmates close enough to family to permit visits does not help with rehabilitation.

For those reasons (if basic humanity were not enough), the First Step Act’s provision directing the Bureau of Prisons to “place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence,” got a lot of coverage when the bill passed last December.

But just as the media buzz that 4,000-plus inmates were going to be dumped on America’s streets the day after the Act passed was wrong, the giddy hopes that inmates were about to be placed near to their families have been tempered by the realities of what the Act says and what the BOP is willing to do.

There is a usually a separation between promise and reality, sometimes a crack and sometimes a chasm. It is probably worthwhile, therefore, to explain just how little Sec. 601 of the First Step Act really promises families and inmates.

Sec. 601 modified 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to read that the BOP should try to place prisoners within 500 miles of home. That placement, however, is not required. In fact, it is subject to some pretty big exceptions, being subject to

(1)   bed availability,
(2)   the prisoner’s security designation,
(3)   the prisoner’s programmatic needs,
(4)   the prisoner’s mental and medical health needs,
(5) any request made by the prisoner related to faith-based needs,
(6)  recommendations of the sentencing court, and
(7)  “other security concerns of the” BOP.

Number 7 is a doozy. The placement need not violate a rule, or a BOP program statement, or even a local rule adopted by the sending or receiving prison. It just has to be a “concern.” Whatever that is, it is clearly something to be defined by the BOP.

jello190520Prior to the First Step Act, the BOP required that an inmate be at one institution for at least 18 months, and that he or she have 18 months without a disciplinary report (the BOP called it “clear conduct”) before he or she could be considered for a transfer. Often, transfers were denied because the inmate was deemed to need programming available at his or her current location, or occasionally, because the inmate had skills (a welder, for example, or a GED instructor) the current institution believed it needed to retain. When the transfer came (if it did), the inmate seldom ended up at the institution he or she desired.

In the wake of First Step, however, the BOP is still requiring that an inmate be at one institution for at least 18 months, and that he or she have 18 months without a disciplinary report (the BOP called it “clear conduct”) before he or she could be considered for a transfer. The BOP can still deny transfers for programming needs, perceived mental health needs (which, given the state of mental health treatment in the system, is a hoot), and for lack of bed space (which inmates from years past know to be an excuse that means whatever the BOP wants it to mean). Anything not covered by the foregoing can easily fall within the as-amorphous-as-Jello “security concerns” exception.

But they can’t do that, can they? Of course not. The injured inmate can always that the BOP to court…

Not so fast. Sec. 601 of the First Step Act added a free pass to the BOP: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” So you don’t like what the BOP did? You can’t sue, can’t even bring a habeas corpus action, can’t even get on Judge Judy. The directive of § 601, detailed in its mandate and limitations, is completely undone by the last line of § 601, which tells the BOP, “if you don’t follow the law, no one is allowed to call you on it.”

wendys190520Imagine a football game like that, where one team gets a yellow flag repeatedly, with each penalty being marched off for zero yards. Or, my preferred fantasy, a diet on which if you succumb to Wendy’s Peppercorn Mushroom Melt Triple with a side of Baconator Fries and large Coke, the 2,190 calories you consume would not keep you from dropping a pound a day. Sweet deal for the BOP.

If the BOP could be sued, the results would not be much different. Courts traditionally give substantial deference to the judgments of prison administrators. Even restrictive prison regulations are permissible if they are “‘reasonably related’ to legitimate penological interests. The BOP would say that its transfer restrictions – like 18 months of clear conduct – serve a legitimate penological goal. The courts, deferring to the BOP’s interpretation of the revised statute and its flexibility granted therein, would undoubtedly accept that.

chevron190520Finally, even without prison-administration deference, courts generally defer to administrative agencies “when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules… and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” This is called “Chevron deference,” and – while opponents hope to see the Supreme Court undo it at some point soon – it would easily apply to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) as to how the BOP measures bed availability, security concerns, programming needs and mental and physical health needs.

So if the BOP ignores the Act’s 500-mile placement requirement, there is no remedy. Even if there were, BOP rules on transfer and the exceptions to closer-to-home would probably be unassailable.

Sec. 601, First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-015, 132 Stat. 5208, 5238 (Dec. 21, 2018)

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Will Calculate First Step Extra Good Time on July 19th – Update for May 6, 2019

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.

JULTEENTH

imageMost everyone knows that “Juneteenth” is an unofficial but increasingly-popular holiday commemorating June 19, 1865, the date on which slavery was abolished in Texas, the last stronghold of the dying Confederacy. When the Texan slaves were declared free on that date, slavery was no longer legal anywhere in North America. 

This year, July 19, will become “Julteenth,” the date on which BOP computers will automatically update sentence records to credit the additional seven days per year good-time that was awarded in the First Step Act last December, crediting federal prisoners retroactively to the start of their sentences. Some prisoners will receive, in one fell swoop, a six months credit on their incarceration.

When First Step passed last December 21st, Congress intended that the seven days be credited immediately. Indeed, opponents and supporters of the bill predicted an immediate flood of federal prisoners released in time for Christmas. Proponents envisioned the happiest of Christmases for many reunited families. Opponents darkly predicted vicious criminals running amok on America’s Yuletide streets. But in the back-and-forth on debating and amending the measure to please some die-hard opponents of any criminal justice reform legislation that suggested common sense, the seven days’ good time got tucked in a section of the bill addressing the new risk assessment system. A subsection of that provision gave the Attorney General 210 days (which worked out to July 19, 2019) to roll out the risk assessment proposal. Broadly written and poorly conceived, the measure hooked the seven days’ additional good time to that section as well.

unintendedconsequences190506The additional good-conduct time was granted because it was what Congress always had intended. Unfortunately, the prior good-conduct time provision in 18 USC 3624(b)(1) but had written so poorly that the Bureau of Prisons was able to interpret it in the most miserly way possible. In irony that would be appreciated had it not dashed prisoners’ hopes so badly, the good time “fix” was screwed up to, enabling the Dept. of Justice to interpret it to delay the seven days’ good time until the risk assessment – which has nothing to do with the seven days’ additional good time – was completed.

Since First Step passed, DOJ has blown through a 30-day deadline for starting the risk assessment adoption process, leading some to speculate on whether it would ignore the July 19 deadline for the seven days’ additional good-time credit as well. Fortunately, BOP last week dispelled that speculation with a welcome announcement that the additional credit would be automatically applied on that date.

Whether the Attorney General will deliver a risk assessment program on July 19th, one that will meaningfully determine risk of recidivism in an efficient and fair way, is another thing altogether. Previously, we reported on the appointment of conservative think-tank Hudson Institute to host the Independent Review Committee, the group that is to recommend a risk assessment program for adoption. In a joint statement released a week ago last Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Chairwoman Karen Bass (D-California), sharply questioned the appointment, declaring that “our concerns about this decision remain” even after staff was briefed by the agency.

Under the Act, the IRC’s function is to create independent oversight of the law’s implementation and to ensure that reforms are carried out in a bipartisan and evidence-based manner. First Step directs the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice to “select a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization with expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools.”

strangelove190506“The Hudson Institute appears to have little or no expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools,” Nadler and Bass complained. “Committee staff questioned DOJ representatives charged with overseeing First Step Act implementation as to why the Hudson Institute was selected, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked whether the Hudson Institute has ever studied or developed a risk and needs assessment tool, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked on what date the Hudson Institute was selected, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked what process was used to select the Hudson Institute, and again were told that DOJ representatives did not know.”

The suggestion is that political sources out the DOJ (read “the White House”) dictated Hudson Institute’s appointment. “The Hudson Institute and its leadership have opposed sentencing reform and… the First Step Act’s reforms,” the joint press release said. “We are concerned that the selection of a biased organization lacking requisite expertise may reflect a lack of intent to diligently and effectively implement the bipartisan criminal justice reforms passed last Congress.”

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, agreed. “The Hudson Institute has no interest or expertise in criminal justice policy, and to the extent they do have any opinion about policy, they’re very hostile to the kinds of provisions that are in the First Step Act,” Mauer told Salon magazine. “It’s a strange choice when there are so many other reputable think tanks and organizations that do have experience in these issues.”

Nadler and Bass demanded that The Hudson Institute’s appointment be rescinded, but DOJ sources report that such a move is very unlikely. Of more significance is the question of whether a workable risk assessment system is in place in the next two and a half months, so the BOP can roll out programs inmates can use to earn good-time credits.

In the midst of the flying political fur over Hudson Institute’s involvement, no one is speculating about that.

House Judiciary Committee, Nadler & Bass Statement on DOJ’s Selection of the Hudson Institute to Host First Step Act Independent Review Committee (Apr. 23)

Salon, Is the Trump Justice Department trying to sabotage the First Step Act? (Apr. 28)

– Thomas L. Root

Fake News on Second Step Act – Update for May 2, 2019

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.

JUST FOOLIN’

trumpaprilfool190502President Trump told an April Fools’ Day gathering the White House to celebrate the First Step Act that “I’m announcing that the Second Step Act will be focused on successful reentry and reduced unemployment for Americans with past criminal records, and that’s what we’re starting right away.”

Um… not really.

The Washington Examiner last week quoted White House sources as saying that “there’s definitely not a Second Step Act.” In fact, it appears that Trump wandered off script from the prepared speech, which did not mention a Second Step at all.

Instead, the source is quoted as saying, the White House is focused instead on implementing the First Step Act in a way that denies ammunition to opponents such as uber-critic Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.

cotton190502So far, First Step has not been a roaring success. A drafting error stalled additional “good time” credit for 150,000 federal inmates, creating a likely wave of about 4,000 releases around July. White House officials considered options to move forward the date but ultimately did not. “There’s a lot of concern that they have to get this right. Folks like Tom Cotton are just waiting for someone to do something stupid,” said the source who has worked on White House efforts. “People are going to want to wait and see how this [First Step Act] works out.”

Meanwhile, a broad coalition of groups is pushing for repeal of the federal ban on Pell Grants for incarcerated students, as talks heat up over reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Those organizations include civil rights groups, religious colleges and conservative organizations, argue that college access for students behind bars is an issue of equity for postsecondary education and also the logical extension of efforts to end mass incarceration.

Since 1994, federal law has prohibited prisoners from receiving Pell Grants, the primary form of need-based student aid. The Trump administration, however, has named financial aid for incarcerated students as a top priority for a new higher ed law.

Washington Examiner, Trump declared he was working on a Second Step Act. The proposal doesn’t exist (Apr. 26)

Inside Higher Ed, The Case for Pell in Prisons (Apr. 22)

– Thomas L. Root

ACLU Questions Implementation of First Step – Update for April 24, 2019

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.

ADVOCACY GROUPS BLAST DOJ/BOP FIRST STEP ACT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

An Apr. 12 letter to the Dept. of Justice from the American Civil Liberties Union, writing on behalf of 10 other advocacy groups, blasted DOJ’s selection of the Hudson Institute as host of the Independent Review Committee, which is tasked with developing the First Step Act’s risk assessment system.

risk160627The IRC is to propose a risk assessment system for use in the enabling the Bureau of Prison’s programming to reduce recidivism, for which inmates will receive extra good time that can be used to cut sentences and award additional halfway house or home confinement. The First Step Act requires that the risk assessment system be in place by July 19, but DOJ is already two months behind.

The ACLU letter complained that while the Act required that a non-partisan non-profit host organization with expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools be picked, “the Hudson Institute is… a politically conservative think tank, whose research and analysis promotes global security, freedom and prosperity…” and “there is no evidence on its website, in the form of research publications or otherwise, which remotely suggests the organization has any expertise or experience in the study and development of risk and needs assessment systems.”

The letter also warned that neither the current BOP security classification system nor the U.S. Probation Office post-conviction risk assessment protocol should be adopted as a substitute for the Act’s risk assessment system, because neither was “designed to identify specific criminogenic needs and heavily relies on static factors that classify many people who do not go on to reoffend as high risk.”

Not the right halfway house - but you could get drunk here, which is what it may take to believe that BOP will implement FIRST STEP's transitional housing mandates.
Not the right halfway house – but you could get drunk here, which is what it may take to believe that BOP will implement FIRST STEP’s transitional housing mandates.

Finally, the letter noted that since 2017, BOP has made substantial cuts in rehabilitative programming, staff, and halfway houses. “There are 25,000 people in federal prison waiting to be placed in prison work programs, at least 15,000 people waiting for education and vocational training, and at least 5,000 people are awaiting drug abuse treatment,” the letter said. “There is nowhere near enough programming to help prisoners succeed in their communities upon release and thereby reduce recidivism overall. We therefore urge BOP to begin rebuilding rehabilitative services now.”

ACLU, Letter to David B. Muhlhausen (Apr. 12)

– Thomas L. Root

Justice Dept. Picks First Step Foe to Spearhead Recidivism Risk Standard Adoption – Update for April 15, 2019

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.

HAS DOJ SENT THE FOX TO GUARD THE HENHOUSE?

As we observed last Tuesday, the Dept. of Justice has announced that it had appointed the Hudson Institute, a right-of-center think tank best known for its national security work, to design a risk-assessment tool that must be in place before prisoners can receive earned-time credit for completing BOP programs designed to reduce recidivism.

bog190312

The appointment, required by the First Step Act to be in place by Jan. 21, was only 78 days late.

First Step requires that a prisoner’s risk of recidivism (different from security and custody levels) be assessed before he or she starts programming. The risk can go up or down, depending on the inmate’s progress. The lower a prisoner’s risk, the more credit that can be earned.

However, the Act does not specify how a person’s recidivism risk level should be calculated. Instead, it instructs the attorney general to consult with an “independent review committee” to design the system.

DOJ said that Hudson Institute will host the independent review committee. Hudson has the discretion to appoint committee members, who will work to advise on the shape of the final risk-adjustment tool.

henhouse180307Some lawmakers from both parties who backed First Step Act expressed concern late last week at Hudson’s appointment. “I’m a little bit worried that we just let a fox in the chicken coop here,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said during a confirmation hearing last week. “This… think tank… published an article entitled, ‘Why Trump Should Oppose Criminal-Justice Reform…’ [and has] now been chosen by the Department of Justice and Trump administration to be part of this so-called independent review system.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) described the institute as an “opponent of the First Step Act… I don’t see a lot of good faith in implementing this law right now,” Lee said. “And it’s become increasingly clear to me in the last few days that some Department of Justice officials at least don’t like the First Step Act, and they seem not to care that Congress passed this law and that President Trump signed this into law.”

The Hudson Institute, founded in 1961, is known for its work on national security and foreign policy, though it also focuses on economics and domestic policy. For the First Step Act, it has announced six committee members so far who will develop the risk assessment program, one of whom is Hudson’s chief operating officer, John Walters.

Walters once wrote that it was a “great urban myth” that the country was imprisoning too many people for drug possession and that the 100:1 crack-to-powder cocaine disparity was merely a “perceived,” not a real, racial injustice. In 2015, Walters wrote that the concept of “mass incarceration” was a myth, and that “the great majority of federal prisoners appear to be incarcerated because they were, properly, adjudged guilty and justly sentenced.”

release160523The New York Times reported last Tuesday that First Step’s retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act has already “prompt[ed] 800 sentencing reductions already, according to the Justice Department. Of that group, nearly 650 inmates have been released from prison. Another 22 inmates have received sentencing reductions under a compassionate release program that is part of the law.” It reported last Saturday that since First Step was passed, 10 prisoners of 23 that have so far been deemed eligible have been released under the First Step’s Elderly Offender Home Detention (EOHD) program.

Testifying last Tuesday before the Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Attorney General William Barr promised “to robustly fund and diligently implement [First Step] at the Department.”

If you want to know where the real headwinds to First Step will come from, look no further that last Saturday’s Times. It’s one thing to support criminal justice reform in the abstract. But when it comes to individuals, the Gray Lady makes it clear that her anti-felon “lock-’em-up” biases are every bit as finely honed as Sen. Tom Cotton’s ever were.

unforgivenfelon190415The newspaper breathlessly reported on one inmate released under EOHD: “The First Step Act offered prisoner rehabilitation programs and overhauled sentencing policies that supporters claimed had a disproportionate effect on poor defendants, especially minorities. But one person who benefited from the law was Hassan Nemazee, who was once an investor of enormous wealth and who donated heavily to Democratic political causes.” The Times reported that “Mr. Nemazee was charged in 2009 with orchestrating a scheme that defrauded banks of nearly $300 million,” and it complained that home detention “feels a lot like freedom.”

Once the media start picking at the offenses for which inmates who benefit from First Step were convicted, public outrage will not be far behind.

Washington Free Beacon, “DOJ Taps Conservative Think Tank to Help Implement FIRST STEP Act” (Apr. 8)

Mother Jones, Trump Keeps Celebrating Prison Reform. His Administration’s Latest Move Could Sabotage It (Apr. 11)

New York Times, Justice Dept. Works on Applying Sentencing Law as Critics Point to Delays (Apr. 8)

New York Times, He Committed a $300 Million Fraud, but Left Prison Under Trump’s Justice Overhaul (Apr. 13)

– Thomas L. Root