Tag Archives: FIRST STEP Act

BOP Updates Home Confinement Policy To Catch Up With First Step – Update for April 8, 2020

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

BOP ISSUES NEW HOME CONFINEMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT

The BOP finally and officially has directed its staff to issue maximum home confinement (10% of sentence up to a max of 6 months, under 18 USC 3624[c][2]). This, of course, was something the BOP was told to do almost 16 months ago by the First Step Act.

home190109Section 602 of the Act amended 18 USC 3624(c)(2) – which authorizes home confinement for prisoners at the end of their sentences for a period not to exceed the lesser of 10% of their sentences or 6 months – to add that “the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”

The need to add the provision is inexplicable. Home confinement, overseen by the U.S. Probation Office for the BOP, costs about $8.00 a day, compared with imprisonment ($102.60 a day) or halfway house ($94.50 a day).  One would think that home confinement would be the first option a BOP case manager would be directed to consider, given the BOP’s chronic shortage of budget and personnel. It’s as close to a win-win as you can get.

But one would be wrong. The BOP has always been focused on halfway house, with the halfway houses then moving its inmates to home confinement as they got to the 10%/six-month eligibility period.

winwin200408Even after passage of the Act, the BOP used the delay in adoption of the PATTERN risk and needs assessment protocol as a basis for not maximizing home confinement. After all, the argument went, no one knows if someone falls into the “lower risk levels and lower needs” category without a PATTERN analysis.

Now that PATTERN is adopted, the BOP is out of excuses.

The April 3rd directive says the BOP interprets Section 602 “to refer to inmates that have lower risks of reoffending in the community, and reentry needs that can be addressed without RRC placement. The Bureau currently utilizes home confinement for these inmates.
Accordingly, staff should refer eligible inmates for the maximum amount of time permitted under the statutory requirements.”

Of course, the BOP’s adherence to First Step’s directive, like the rest of 18 USC § 3624, is exempted from judicial review by 18 USC § 3625. So there is no policing mechanism other than Congressional oversight to ensure that the BOP does what is undeniably in the agency’s own best interest.

Operations Memorandum 001-2020, Home Confinement Under the First Step Act (Apr. 3, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Virus or No, The World Keeps Turning on Hobbs Act and FSA – Update for March 31, 2020

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

MEANWHILE, A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT FAIR SENTENCING ACT/HOBBS ACT CASES…

Two appellate cases handed down last week would have been headliners any other time except for now, with the coronavirus crowding everything else out of the news.

crackpowder160606In 2001, Brandon Gravatt was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine (21 USC § 846). He pled guilty to the dual-object drug conspiracy charge, facing sentences of 10 years-to-life for the coke and 10-to-life for the crack. The court sentenced him to just short of 22 years.

After the Fair Sentencing Act became retroactive due to the  provision at Section 404 of the First Step Act (passed in December 2018), Brandon filed for a sentence reduction because the crack statutory minimum had fallen to five years. But the District Court denied his motion, because the 10-to-life sentence for the powder cocaine remained the same.

Last week, in a decision awaited by a lot of people, the 4th Circuit reversed. It held that even in a multi-object conspiracy like Brandon’s – where the penalties of one object (possession of crack) were reduced by the FSA while the penalties of the other (powder cocaine) were not – if the crack minimum sentence fell, Brandon was eligible for resentencing. The Circuit said because Brandon’s “sentence involved a covered offense under Section 404(a) [of the First Step Act], the district court should have reviewed Gravatt’s motion on the merits, applying its discretion under Sections 404(b) and (c).”

Of course, the 4th said, the quantity of powder cocaine in Gravatt’s case could mean the district court would decide not to lower his sentence. “Our decision today,” the Circuit said, “only requires that Gravatt’s sentence receive a substantive review. It should not be construed as expressing any view on how the district court should rule.”

Meanwhile, the 11th Circuit held last week that a Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence for purposes of determining whether a defendant was a “career offender” under Chapter 4B of the Guidelines.

violence151213Joining the 6th and 9th Circuits, the 11th held that because the Guidelines definition of robbery and extortion only extends to physical force against persons, while under Hobbs Act robbery and extortion, the force can be employed or threatened against property as well, the Hobbs Act (18 USC § 1951) is broader than the Guidelines definition, and thus cannot be a crime of violence for career offender purposes.

Unfortunately, because 18 USC § 924(c) does include threats to property as well as to people, the 11th Circuit holding does not apply to defendants with § 924(c) counts supported by Hobbs Act convictions.

United States v. Gravatt, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9053 (4th Cir Mar 23, 2020)

United States v. Eason, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9096 (11th Cir Mar 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Defendant Can’t “Bank” Jail Time Against Future Crime – Update for March 19, 2020

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

BANKING ON IT

Ron Jackson was sentenced to 20 year for a crack cocaine offense back in 2003. After the First Step Act passed, he received a reduction in sentence to time served under the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act. Ron had served 177 months at the time.

getoutofjail200319Freedom after 15 years in prison wasn’t enough for Ron. His revised Guidelines under the Fair Sentencing Act were 120 months, and he wanted his revised sentence to be reduced to that level. He intended to “bank” the 57 months he had served in excess of 120 months against a future supervised release violation.

The district court refused to make a deposit into Ron’s “time served” bank account, holding that the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a) only supported a reduction to time served. “In particular,” the court said, “the need to protect the public and the need for deterrence dictate that a defendant not be allowed to “bank time,” which could allow him to commit further crimes without the fear of imprisonment.”

Ron appealed.

Last week, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court. Ron argued that the new sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court misapplied § 3553(a)’s protection-of-the-public and deterrence factors in considering banked time and substantively unreasonable because banked time is an improper sentencing factor. The Court, however, found that a district court is not forbidden from considering the impact of banked time when deciding whether to reduce a “sentence to time served or some lesser term.” Furthermore, “a defendant is not entitled to a sentence that would result in banked time,” the 4th said. “Even when a defendant’s conviction itself is vacated, there are situations where the defendant will not receive credit for the time during which he was incorrectly incarcerated.”

piggybankjailtime200319The appeals court was concerned that letting Ron “bank” his time would only encourage him to later “spend” the banked time by committing a further crime for which he had already paid. The Court of Appeals said, “the availability of banked time to offset a revocation sentence” is very relevant to the factor of deterring future offenses and protecting the public. “It is reasonable,” the Circuit said, “for a district court to think that the prospect of returning to prison under a revocation sentence would provide a measure of deterrence against future crimes of the defendant and thereby provide a measure of protection to the public.”

United States v. Jackson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

A Short Rocket – Update for March 12, 2020

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

WE’VE GOT THE SHORTS…

rocket-312767Arson: In a decision approving filing a second-or-successive 2255 motion, the 6th Circuit last week held that because United States v. Davis is retroactive, a defendant who was convicted of 18 USC 844(i) arson and an 18 USC 924(c) use of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail) could challenge the 924(c) conviction.

The 6th said the defendant’s “924(c) conviction was premised upon his use of a destructive device in furtherance of the 844(i) offense… The question is whether 844(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another… Arson under 844(i) does not appear to qualify as a crime of violence under 924(c)(3)(A) because it can be committed against “any building… used in interstate or foreign commerce,” including one owned by the arsonist… That means defendant’s 924 conviction must have been based on 924(c)(3)(B), which Davis invalidated…”

In re Franklin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6672 (6th Cir. Mar, 3, 2020)

manyguns190423Waiver: The defendant pled guilty to violating 18 USC 924(c) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence — theft from a firearms dealer under 18 USC 922(u). He filed a 2255 motion claiming after United States v. Davis, a 922(u) violation no longer counts as a crime of violence. But his plea agreement included the waiver of his right to contest the conviction and sentence “on any ground, including any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel relates directly to this waiver or its negotiation, including any appeal… or any post-conviction proceeding, including but not limited to, a proceeding under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255…”

Last week, the 7th Circuit ruled this collateral-attack waiver was valid and barred a Davis challenge to the conviction and sentences.

Oliver v United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6760 (7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2020)

Fair Sentencing Act: The Defendants were sentenced for crack offenses under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) prior to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. After the First Step Act passed, they applied for sentence reductions. The government; argued they were not eligible because the amounts of crack they were found to have been involved with at sentencing were so great that their sentence exposure did not change.

crackpowder160606The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week held that the defendants were eligible. It held that “the weight of authority supports Defendants’ interpretation. “[T]he majority of district court cases in this Circuit” have found “that a defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act based upon his offense of conviction, as opposed to his actual conduct… Decisions from other circuits also favor Defendants’ interpretation. See United States v. White, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119164 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2019) (collecting over 40 cases across the nation that agree with defendants’ interpretation of ‘covered offense’).”

The EDNY court said it “joins the chorus of district courts to hold that eligibility under… the First Step Act is based on the crime of conviction and not a defendant’s actual conduct. Both defendants were convicted of violating 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A), the statutory penalties for which were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. They are both therefore eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

United States v. Pressley, 2020 US Dist. LEXIS 34973 (EDNY Feb 28, 2020)

ACCA Recklessness: The Supreme Court last week granted certiorari to a case asking whether an offense that involves physical force that is used recklessly – that is, conduct undertaken with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk – is a crime of violence for Armed Career Criminal Act purposes.

A prior case asking the same issue was recently dismissed after the defendant/petitioner died.

Borden v. United States, Case No. 19-5410 (certiorari granted Mar. 2, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Opening the First Step Money Spigot – Update for February 20, 2020

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

MONEY, THAT’S WHAT I WANT…

Moneyspigot200220
One of the big questions left unanswered when the First Step Act passed was where the money would come from to pay for all of the ambitious programs to reduce recidivism..

Last week, the Trump administration addressed the question, proposing big budget increases for First Step implementation in 2021. A budget summary sent to Congress last week reports the administration will seek $409 million for First Step, a large increase over the $319 million provided this year.

Included are what the White House called “major new investments” in programming, halfway houses and additional Bureau of Prisons First Step staff.

Line items include an extra $244 million for halfway houses, supporting an increase in the total available beds – to meet First Step’s promise of extra halfway house time for earned-time credits –  from 14,000 to about 23,000; $37 million for expansion of the Medication-Assisted Treatment pilot program, which combines behavioral therapy and medication to treat inmates with opioid use disorder, to all BOP facilities; $23 million for increased inmate access to evidence-based, recidivism-reduction programs and to and add new programs as they are identified and evaluated; and $15 million for extra First Step implementation staff.

The budget builds on the $90 million provided in 2020 to support First Step implementation.

moneyhum170419Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last week that “though these budget proposals still might fall short of what is needed for full, effective implementation of the First Step Act (e.g., I think Recidivism-Reduction Programs needs a lot more money), this strikes me as a serious effort to put serious money behind the Act (especially with the RRC expansion).”

Unfortunately, a White House proposed budget never survives Congress in anything approaching its initial form, and often never passes at all. As for the FY2021 budget, Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, snorted, “You might call a president’s budget aspirational. In a less charitable way, it’s really delusional.”

The Crime Report, First Step Act Funding Hiked to $409M in Trump Budget Plan (Feb 11)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Notable numbers in “Criminal Justice Reform” fact sheet highlighting part of Prez Trump’s proposed budget (Feb 10)

The White House, Criminal Justice Reform fact sheet (Feb 9)

– Thomas L. Root

Retroactive Crack Law Applies to Some Completed Sentences, 6th Says – Update for February 11, 2020

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

ANOTHER CIRCUIT RULES SUPERVISED RELEASE DEFENDANT ELIGIBLE FOR RETROACTIVE FAIR SENTENCING ACT CUTS

The 6th Circuit joined the 4th last week in ruling that a defendant now serving a prison term for violating supervised release could apply for a retroactive sentencing cut under the Fair Sentencing Act, despite the fact he had completed serving the underlying crack cocaine sentence.

supervisedrevoked181106Aaron Woods served 120 months after being convicted in 2001 for distributing crack. After he was released, he was on supervised release for five years, during which time he caught a state marijuana case. His SR was violated, and he was sent back to federal prison for another 37 months for the revocation.

Aaron applied under the First Step Act for retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act sentence cut. The district court held he was ineligible because his current sentence was for violating SR, not for crack.

The 6th disagreed. “Postrevocation penalties relate to the original offense,” the Circuit held. Treating “revocation and reimprisonment as punishment for the violation of the conditions of supervised release” instead of a continuation of the original offense would raise “serious constitutional questions, such as double jeopardy concerns.” Therefore, Aaron was eligible for an FSA sentence cut.

United States v. Woods, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3462 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Living Under the Sword – Update for February 4, 2020

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 NOT GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES

Who would not want to be Ronald Mack?

sword200204Ron, his brother Rodney and friend Jesse Opher were never supposed to get out of prison. They were sentenced to LWOPs (“life without parole”) after being convicted of crack conspiracy charges in 2001. But then in 2014, a change in the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the base offense level for the quantity of drugs charged against them cut their sentences to 30 years. A few years later, the First Step Act let them apply for retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. In November 2019, same judge who took their futures in 2002 gave them back, reducing their sentences (and that of a fourth man in their case) to time served.

But their freedom may be short-lived. Just as they were beginning to get a feel for their life outside of prison, the four men learned the U.S. Attorney’s Office of New Jersey had filed a notice to appeal their release.

The government had argued the four men were not eligible for reduced sentences because they were also convicted of conspiring to distribute powder cocaine, the penalties for which have not changed under the First Step Act. Their conviction today would still trigger a possible life sentence, the government argued at the November hearing, and the 20 years or so they had served just wasn’t enough.

The judge didn’t buy it. She noted that the government’s original trial case, and how the jury verdict sheet (written by the government) was worded, both revolved around the mandatory minimums that would come from a crack cocaine conviction. In fact, the judge observed, prosecutors were “asking the jury to make the findings that would, in fact, drive the sentence… I just want to tell you when you look at this jury verdict sheet, it is a graphic on the sentencing guidelines disparities between crack and powder cocaine.”

sowwind200205Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, the judge told the U.S. Attorney.

The men’s lawyers argued that First Step is written to be applied broadly. The judge agreed, saying it was “simple.” The men were convicted of conspiracy to commit a crack offense before 2010, so they are eligible. That’s all First Step requires.

So the government filed its notice of appeal, indeed, filing it before the deadline. In so doing, however, the government got a little ahead of itself, however. A government criminal appeal has to be approved by the Solicitor General. Right now, the appeal is stayed, because Washington has not yet given the New Jersey U.S. Attorney approval to proceed.

Such approval is not automatic. The SG has to consider whether the facts of the case and the judge’s holding are such that the government can win. Right now, the government has a single district court case (which does not bind other district courts) going against its position. If it does not appeal, Ron and his co-conspirators go free after doing about 20 years. If it does appeal and loses, it has a Circuit court precedent that will bind district courts in three states, as well as serve as persuasive authority in the rest of the country.

For years, Ron  expected to die in prison. He has been free for almost three months, but ever since the government’s notice of appeal he is living under the Sword of Damocles. He wonders daily, “Am I going back? “When are they going to stop?,” he asked in a recent interview. “That’s what I want to know. When are they ever going to stop? Are they ever going to stop?”

NJ.com, Judge released 4 N.J. men after nearly 20 years in prison. Now, the feds want to send them back (Jan 26)

Order, United States v. Mack, Case No. 19-3891 (3rd Cir. Jan 14, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Issues Earned Time Credit Program List – Update for January 20, 2020

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

BOP ROLLS OUT FINAL PIECE OF FIRST STEP ACT

teeth200120For those who have been living in a cave for the past 18 months, let’s start with some background. Congress passed the First Step Act in December 2018, the first significant criminal justice legislation in 30 years or so. The public relations centerpiece of the Act was a program to be implemented by the Bureau of Prisons that would assess inmates not just for security risks (something that the BOP has done since the Feds took their first prisoner – the guy who stole General Washington’s wooden teeth – almost two and a half centuries ago), but for the inmate’s risk of recidivism and his or her programming needs that would presumably reduce the chance of reoffending.

The program would then match the inmates with prison programs that would address those needs. Inmates who successfully completed the various programs would be granted “earned-time credits” which could be used for additional halfway house or home confinement. The first 12 months’ worth of credit could even be applied to reduce sentence length by a year.

tortoise190722The Act gave the BOP ample grace period to adopt the assessment tool and implement programming, but time finally ran out yesterday. And just under the wire, last Wednesday the Dept. of Justice announced implementation of the final recidivism and needs assessment program, known by the acronym PATTERN. The final version contains several minor changes from last summer’s draft, alterations made in response to public comments filed last fall. Two days later, the BOP published a list of the programs it currently has or will be adopting, and announced the beginning of earned time credits for federal inmates for completing programing intended to reduce recidivism.

“Beginning today, inmates will have even greater incentive to participate in evidence-based programs that prepare them for productive lives after incarceration,” Attorney General William Barr was quoted as saying in last week’s DOJ press release. “The First Step Act is an important reform to our criminal justice system, and the Department of Justice is committed to implementing the Act fully and fairly.”

The principal change in PATTERN was to add a dynamic measure of an inmate’s “infraction free” period during incarceration, adding a number of prior programs and UNICOR to the programs that benefitted a prisoner’s PATTERN score, and removing metrics for age at first arrest and voluntary surrender from the PATTERN assessment matrix. PATTERN will also no longer look at whether an inmate participated in education or drug treatment programs to measure initial recidivism risk.

Critics had complained that the draft’s focus on an inmate’s prior run-ins with the criminal justice system weighted the system so that minorities generally would be classified as greater recidivism risks than would white inmates.

EBProg200120The list of “evidence based” programs that can qualify an inmate for earned time credits, published last Friday on the BOP site, identified 70 programs, almost all of which will be available at all BOP facilities. The list included some unsurprising ones, such as working at UNICOR, vocational programs, all drug programs, GED and ESL. As well, many new programs, many aimed as cognitive behavior therapy to address everything from food disorders, insomnia, gambling and anger management.

Each program entry in the BOP release lists the program, duration, number of hours’ earned time credit the program earns, locations where the program is offered, and needs the program addresses. For example, one of the 70 programs is called BRAVE (Bureau Rehabilitation and Values Enhancement), a cognitive behavior therapy program for young males on their first offense, will run for six months, 20 hours per week, and earn an inmate completing the program 500 hours of earned time credit. The program, which addresses programs with antisocial peers and cognitions, will be offered at FCI Beckley and Victorville.

The publication contains no explanation of how the BOP intends to convert earned time credit hours into days, which is what First Step contemplated. In the case of a continuing activity like UNICOR, the program list states inmates can earn 500 earned time credit hours, but it does not specify over what period of time or if that 500 hours is just a one-time award.

falsehope170206The First Step Act authorized the BOP to award earned-time credits retroactively to the adoption date of the Act, but the agency has said nothing about doing so. Inmates have had high hopes that such credits would be granted, but long-time observers – including the undersigned – held out little hope that the BOP would take any discretionary step that conferred a benefit on inmates. So far, even a little hope has proven to be too much.

The BOP list of programs is available here.

DOJ, Department of Justice Announces Enhancements to the Risk Assessment System and Updates on First Step Act Implementation (Jan. 15)

BOP, Evidence-based Recidivism Reduction (EBRR) Programs and Productive Activities (PA) (Jan. 17)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Slouches Toward First Step Programming – Update for January 13, 2020

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

EARNED TIME CREDITS – THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS

devil200113Probably the biggest selling point used by First Step Act supporters when Congress passed the measure in December 2018 was that the bill would deliver evidence-based programming to reduce recidivism. The inmates would be assessed under a new program that accurately gauged their likelihood to be recidivists and their needs that should be met to reduce that likelihood. The inmates would benefit, the public would benefit, the overcrowded and understaffed prisons would benefit, the U.S. Treasury would benefit. Everyone’s a winner!

The programming to reduce recidivism, after more than a year of preparation, is supposed to begin in a week. But the devil’s in the details, and hope for a broad rollout that meets the expectations of First Step backers, let alone those of inmates, is dwindling rapidly.

recividists160314By now, virtually all inmates have undergone an initial assessment under PATTERN, the new risk and needs assessment program developed in response to the First Step Act. According to the Act (a provision now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(h)(1)(B)), the Bureau of Prisons is to begin to expand the most effective evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities it currently offers and to add any new evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities necessary to effectively implement First Step by Jan. 20. Subsection (h)(2)(A) gives the BOP until Jan. 20, 2022, to provide such programming for all inmates. During the “phase in” period, priority placement in the programs is to go to people closest to their release date.

As an incentive for participating in the programs, the First Step Act provides eligible inmates with earned-time credits which can be used toward increasing pre-release custody (halfway house and/or home confinement) or swapping time inside the BOP for more supervised release. A Bloomberg Law article described it last week like this: “Earned time credits… do not reduce a prisoner’s sentence, per se, but rather allow eligible prisoners to serve their sentence outside prison walls.”

winner200113But for a lot of reasons the question of whether the BOP is anywhere close to meeting the First Step Act’s timetable remains open. First, as the BOP admitted two weeks ago, PATTERN has not yet been adopted in its final form. Although the BOP has promised to identify its existing programs that will award inmates earned-time credits, it has not yet done so. What’s more, a surprising large number of federal inmates will not be eligible to receive earned time credits because the BOP has determined they are excluded by one or more of the 65 categories of crime or immigration statute exempted from the program by Congress.

The current limits on time in a halfway house (up to 12 months) and home confinement (the lesser of six months or 10% of the sentence) specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) will not apply to earned time credits. Thus, an inmate can be released to more than a year of halfway house or home confinement after accumulating earned time credits.

Bloomberg Law reported last week that any earned-time credits inmates receive for completing programs prior to the final implementation of the PATTERN tool – whenever that will be – will not be eligible for redemption until the tool is implemented. What’s more, the article reported, “the ability to start earning credits may not actually come for most prisoners until even later than that, depending on how long it takes the BOP to apply PATTERN and create programming and productive activities and assign prisoners to them.”

prisonrace200113PATTERN was the subject of a House Judiciary Committee Oversight hearing last October, where some experts expressed concern about its “racial bias and lack of transparency, fairness, and scientific validity.” The Dept. of Justice has not said how close PATTERN is to being finalized, stating only that it “is currently undergoing fine-tuning.” Indications are that inmates that have been scored so far have been analyzed under a preliminary version of the tool. Last July, DOJ estimates were that the final PATTERN program would be in place by Thanksgiving 2019.

A further impediment to full implementation of earned-time credit program will be the availability of halfway house beds. In most of the country, there is a shortage of available halfway house beds for federal inmates. The Act provides no additional funding or resources for the BOP to increase the loss of halfway house beds, which was at crisis levels several years ago.

“The BOP has a long history of acting in ways that result in lengthier and less productive terms of incarceration despite the obvious will of Congress,” David E. Patton, executive director of the nonprofit Federal Defenders of New York, was quoted as saying by the Washington Post. “For decades the BOP took an unreasonably restrictive view of good time, resulting in thousands of years of additional overall prison time. For decades it refused to exercise the authority given to it by Congress to release incarcerated people who were terminally ill, infirm, or otherwise suffered from extraordinary circumstances… and for decades it has not provided enough vocational, educational, mental health, and substance abuse programming despite abundant need and lengthy waitlists.” Pointing to DOJ data, Patton said wait lists include 25,000 prisoners for prison work assignments, 15,000 for vocational and educational training and 5,000 for drug treatment.

The Washington Post said last week that almost half of BOP prisoners complete no programs, more than half don’t get needed drug treatment, more than 80% haven’t taken technical or vocational courses, and more than 90% have no prison industry employment, according to data.

Help-Wanted180221“The BOP is struggling to fulfill the requirements of the Act as the Bureau is still more than 4,000 positions short,” Shane Fausey, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals, told the Post. He complained of “abusive overtime and mandatory double shifts,” adding that requirements of the First Step Act have worsened the crisis.

BOP Director Kathleen Hawk Sawyer told the House oversight committee last October that the understaffing was over 3,700 vacancies and said resolving that “is among my highest priorities… but doing so will take time.”

Bloomberg Law, Insight: The First Step Act—Earned Time Credits on the Horizon (Jan. 9)

Washington Post, Federal prison reform has bipartisan support. But it’s moving slowly. (Jan. 9)

– Thomas L. Root

First Birthday for First Step – Update for January 10, 2020

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

ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST STEP

The first anniversary of the First Step Act, which passed just before Christmas, generated a few observations in the media. USA Today ran an opinion piece that said “the sweeping measure has succeeded over the past year in reducing the number of people serving unjust sentences in our federal prison system. It has been estimated that the measure would impact more than 12,000 cases a year.”

Michael Deegan-McCree, who heads The Bail Project and had worked with #cut50, wrote that the real achievement of First Step was that it led to bipartisanship in an era that lacks it. “From my vantage point, and that of many others who fought for the federal act, the true success of this legislation a year out is the example it has set for bipartisan cooperation in criminal justice reform on the state level — where nearly all incarceration cases begin and the majority remain. The legislation has given Democrats and Republicans political cover and the ability to fight for a system that champions treatment over punishment and rehabilitation over retribution.”

New York University law professor Rachel Barkow, a former member of the United States Sentencing Commission, wrote last week that further reform will require a “president who is committed to making criminal justice reform a top priority and uses the bully pulpit to educate the public about all the reforms that are needed as a matter of both fairness and public safety.”

Even so, she said, much of the problem is currently beyond anyone’s reach. “Right now,” she wrote, “the federal bench is overwhelmingly dominated by people who spent part of their careers defending the government and serving as prosecutors. While that is a commendable career choice and we want some of our judges to have that experience, things go awry when you have a bench that disproportionately has that experience.”

USA Today, A year out, First Step is powerful example for states of bipartisan criminal justice reform (Dec. 31)

Brennen Center, Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration (Jan. 3)

– Thomas L. Root