Tag Archives: home confinement

BOP’s Secret Home Confinement Memo Sows Confusion – Update for April 26, 2021

Leave a comment

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

DUELING HOME CONFINEMENT MEMOS DRAW CRITICISM

A week ago, I wrote about a new Bureau of Prisons memo (which some said was really a Dept of Justice memo) expanding eligibility for CARES Act home confinement. I admitted that despite my efforts, I could not obtain a copy of it.

secret210426I’m not alone. FAMM was scrambling, inmates were scrambling, and even Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, the dean of federal sentencing law if there ever was one, complained in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last Tuesday that the memo has still not been released. That same day, Keri Blakinger of The Marshall Project released what purported to be the text of the memo, a well-meant but ultimately unhelpful post.

Meanwhile, my email was smoking. Inmates heard that the BOP had been told to send minimum-security inmates home even if they had not served half of their sentence, the standard that people with prior offenses of violence were excluded had been dropped… the institutions were rife with rumors. People complained that their case managers were stubbornly ignoring the new standards, that wardens were releasing internal memos that underpromised.

You remember the game “post office.” The message was whispered around the circle of kids until it returned to the source mangled beyond recognition. That’s what we had. And the blame can be laid at the bureaucratic feet of the Bureau of Prisons, which would classify road signs as “sensitive” and “FOIA exempt” if the agency could get away with it.

Thankfully, Washington, D.C., leaks like a screen door on a submarine. By Then, on Thursday, both FAMM and the Defenders Services Office of the Administrative Office of U.S. Court (the support agency for Federal Public Defenders nationwide) had obtained bootlegged copies of the memo – an April 13 release from Andre Mateviousian, Assistant Director of the Correctional Services Division, BOP – and posted them on the Internet. These posts, which are identical, appear to be the real deal.

So what changed? A couple of things. First, inmates with -300 and -400 series disciplinary reports shots in the last 12 months are not automatically disqualified. Second, inmates with “low” PATTERN scores are now eligible for CARES Act home confinement.

violence151213What didn’t change? At least a couple of things. First, if you have a prior conviction for a crime of violence (let’s say a bar fight back in 1985, when you were 21 years old and possessed a testosterone-addled brain), you are still disqualified from CARES Act home confinement (no matter that you’re doing 24 months for tearing the label off your mattress). Second, the BOP is adhering to its self-imposed standard that you have to have completed 50% of your sentence (or 25% of your sentence with less than 18 months to go).

So the Marshall Project text was wrong: prior violence still counts. The versions of the memo posted by FAMM and fd.org continue to say that “the inmate’s current or a prior offense” cannot be “violent, a sex offense, or terrorism-related.”

At the end of last week. FAMM President Kevin Ring wrote to the BOP complaining about its failure to officially release the memo. “I am writing to ask that you publish on the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) website any and all memos sent to wardens about the eligibility criteria for CARES Act home confinement,” Ring wrote. “The BOP’s failure to do so has created unnecessary confusion and frustration for incarcerated people and their families…”

There is not a bureaucratic reason on God’s green earth why the BOP could not have released the memorandum on April 13, 2021. Instead, the agency’s obsession with secrecy (or at least playing its cards close to the vest) generated a week’s worth of heat without light. In fact, if the memo had not been leaked to outside organizations, inmates would still be in a tizzy and families still confused.

winnie210426While I am on a rant, I should note the moment in BOP Director Michael Carvajal’s testimony two weeks ago before the Senate Judiciary Committee that made me shout “liar!” at my computer screen. That in turn caused my faithful and efficient office dog Winnie to cower under a table until I calmed down.

As I note, the new memorandum retains the 50%-of-sentence requirement. This is a standard that Attorney General William Barr never imposed. Instead, as you may remember, it was the BOP’s own fiat, added in the agency’s all-too-typical ham-handed way (with inmates who were literally walking out the door to return home being called back because of the new requirement).

When I heard Carvajal assure the Senators that all the BOP had done was to apply the AG’s home confinement criteria, I was disgusted at his prevarication and furious that the Senators were so ill-prepared by their staffs that no one called Carvajal out on the fib.

In Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo noted it as well. He too observed that the time-served requirement was not dictated by the Attorney General, but rather was

based on an internal BOP memorandum that stated it was screening inmates based on whether they had served 25% of their sentence with less than 18 months remaining or have served more than 50% of their sentence. The directive had little logic behind it because COVID-19 did not discriminate between those who had been in prison years or those who had just arrived. The result of the memorandum was devastating, leading to deaths and infections at everyone of the BOP facilities nationwide.

liar151213Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, BOP Director Michael Carvajal said that “…any inmate that is eligible under the criteria presented to me by the Attorney General is on home confinement as we speak.” Pavlo called that misleading, noting that “what Carvajal failed to add were details of the internal memos that mandated that priority for a person’s transfer to home confinement be measured against the amount of time they had served…”

Carvajal’s statement was false then, and it is false now.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Why is DOJ apparently keeping hidden a new memo expanding the criteria for home confinement? (April 20, 2021)

The Marshall Project, Document Cloud, Home Confinement Memo (April 20, 2021)

FAMM, BOP Home Confinement Memorandum of April 13, 2021 (posted April 21, 2021)

Federal Public Defender, BOP Home Confinement Memorandum of April 13, 2021 (posted April 21, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, FAMM urges federal BOP to publish memos with home confinement criteria (April 23, 2021)

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Director Testimony To Senate Judiciary Leaves Unanswered Questions (April 20, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ Eases CARES Act Home Confinement Eligibility – Update for April 19, 2021

Leave a comment

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

DOJ RELAXES PATTERN SCORE LIMITATION FOR CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT

Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal last Thursday told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Dept of Justice has modified the CARES Act home confinement criteria to qualify people whose PATTERN recidivism scores are “low” for home confinement.

release160523A memorandum apparently has been issued, because in a FAMM press release issued on Friday, FAMM president Kevin Ring said “We’re grateful that the new administration heeded the widespread calls to make more people eligible for home confinement. The original criteria were too narrow.”

Although I tried Friday and over the weekend to obtain a copy of the memo, I was not able to. The Ring statement suggests that more than one standard may have changed, but nothing else has been confirmed. I have heard a rumor as to what that change might have been, but I try not to deal in rumors, so I am awaiting confirmation.

The DOJ decision to expand CARES Act home confinement at this time suggests that the Administration does not intend to stop COVID home confinement placement anytime soon, despite the fact that all inmates will have access to vaccine within the next month. Carvajal told the Committee, “We are working to get as many people as are appropriate out within the criteria we are given.”

Sen Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) complained to Carvajal that the BOP’s use of “home confinement fails to comply with the First Step Act.”

mismanagement210419Committee Chair Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) was even blunter, asking Carvajal whether he had been directed to make eligibility for CARES Act home confinement as restrictive as possible. He said of the 230 BOP inmate COVID deaths, “These were preventable deaths. It is clear that the Bureau has been far too rigid in approving transfers to home confinement and to approve compassionate release. This is part of a broader issue of mismanagement.”

Carvajal told the Committee that the BOP, which has about 4,500 prisoners on home confinement under the CARES Act, has always followed DOJ guidance. No one asked him about the BOP’s own gloss on those criteria, which was the April 22, 2020, BOP memo requiring 50% of the sentence to be served (a standard from which the BOP said it could deviate “in its discretion,” if, for example, your name is Paul Manafort or Chaka Fattah).

Carvajal said the home confinement program has been a success. Right now, over 4,500 inmates are at home under the CARES Act, while only 151 have been returned to prison, 26 of which for escape from monitoring, and only three for new crimes (only one of which was violent).

return161227Many Committee members expressed dismay at the January 15 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that CARES Act confinees have to return to prison when the pandemic ends. Carvajal said about 2,400 of the CARES Act confinees have more than a year left on their sentences, and about 310 of those have more than five years to do. He said the BOP just wants guidance: “I ask that the statute be changed, or that we work with the DOJ… I don’t want somebody to believe that the Bureau of Prisons somehow doesn’t want to let someone out.”

But if the confinees are sent back, Carvajal said the BOP is prepared to handle the influx. Not everyone agrees. “We don’t have the staff,” Council of Prison Locals Southeast Regional Vice President Joe Rojas told Reuters. “We are already in chaos as it is, as an agency.”

Durbin and Grassley said they would ask the new Attorney General to withdraw the January OLJ memorandum, or – if that failed – they would seek to change the statute.

Courthouse News Service, Federal Prisons Flunked the Pandemic, Senators Say (April 15, 2021)

Reuters, U.S. has no plans to order inmates released in pandemic back to prison-official (April 15, 2021)

Reason, Pressure Grows on Biden To Rescind Memo That Would Send Thousands Released on Home Confinement Back to Federal Prison (April 16, 2021)

FAMM, FAMM releases statement on Department of Justice expanding home confinement (April 16, 2021)

Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons (April 15, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Patience, People, on Criminal Justice Reform – Update for April 8, 2021

Leave a comment

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

WHEN WILL BIDEN TACKLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM?

The most common question I have gotten from inmates since January is when Congress will pass criminal justice reform. It brings to mind the old variation on the serenity prayer: “Lord, grant me patience… and I want it NOW.”

Reform200819But patience is what everyone needs. There’s the infrastructure, the racial reckoning, and now the gun control push (which will probably prevent a minuscule number of gun crimes, but looks all shiny and robust). I am convinced we will get to criminal justice reform, but it will take a bit.

Still, there are some encouraging signs. First, President Biden’s Dept of Justice followed up on its letter to the Supreme Court a few weeks ago with a brief filed last week in Terry v. United States, arguing that Section 404 of the First Step Act covers low-level crack cocaine offenders sentenced under 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(C), “a dramatic reversal that comes more than three decades after a Biden-crafted bill helped to fuel disproportionately harsh penalties for Black drug offenders,” according to The Hill.

But Biden promised more. During his campaign, he promised to address mandatory minimums. Nkechi Taifa, a Washington-based criminal justice reform advocate, believes that will change soon. Taifa said last week that he has been in touch with the Biden administration. “With respect to drugs,” he said, “it’s only about the weight of drugs and amount of drugs that dictates the time you serve. It doesn’t matter what the judge thinks, doesn’t matter what your characteristics are. Biden has said he’ll do away with it.”

return161227Cynthia Roseberry of the ACLU said on NPR last week that Biden could do a lot with a stroke of a pen, such as reverse the DOJ legal opinion in January that people on CARES Act home confinement had to return to prison when the pandemic ended. Last week, NPR reported, “prisoner rights groups asked Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to intervene, citing their comments about the need to reduce the prison population.”

And just today, FAMM – which has been active in urging the Dept. of Justice to reverse the legal opinion – is urging people to call the Attorney General to lobby him to take action.

Biden has proclaimed April a second chance month for people involved in the justice system. Roseberry told NPR she wants to see Biden use his sweeping power to grant clemency during the month.

The Hill, Biden urges leniency for harsh crack sentences fueled by his crime bill (March 31, 2021)

WTVR-TV, When will President Biden address criminal justice reform? (April 1, 2021)

NPR, Criminal Justice Reform Advocates Say They’re Anxious To See More Action From Biden (April 2, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

CARES Act Extended, But Does the BOP ‘Cares’? – Update for March 1, 2021

Leave a comment

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

COVID AND CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT TO GO ON… FOR NOW

caresbear210104CARES Act Re-upped, As If the BOP Cares: The CARES Act, passed in March 2020, dumped truckloads of money on the coronavirus pandemic. More important that piles of dough (for our purposes, at least), Section 12003 authorized the Federal Bureau of Prisons to place inmates in home confinement as long as the nation is under a COVID emergency and the Attorney General has determined that the “emergency conditions will materially affect the functioning of the Bureau.” President Trump declared a COVID emergency under the National Emergencies Act a few weeks before CARES passed, and Attorney General William Barr made the materiality finding on April 4th.

Under the National Emergencies Act, an emergency only lasts a year unless the President extends it. That means the emergency would have ceased today, and with it, the CARES Act authority would expire.

Last week, President Biden extended the COVID emergency without specifying an end date (which is common). In essence, the COVID emergency will be over with Biden says it is. Biden wrote, “The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation. More than 500,000 people in this Nation have perished from the disease, and it is essential to continue to combat and respond to COVID-19 with the full capacity and capability of the Federal Government.”

One could reasonably infer from the President’s statement that the “full capacity and capability” of the government would include continued BOP use of its CARES Act home confinement authority. Yet, as the New York Times observed last week in a scathing article about the BOP’s failure to use home confinement at FCI Danbury, “just 7,850 of the 151,735 people serving federal sentences right now have been granted home confinement — about 5%. State prison populations have fallen by 15% since the pandemic began, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, but not because inmates are being released to home confinement. Instead, many state prisons simply have stopped accepting transfers from county jails.”

The BOP website prefers to trumpet that “the total number of inmates placed in home confinement from March 26, 2020 to the present (including inmates who have completed service of their sentence) is 22,158.” But it turns out that most of those people were placed there in normal course by halfway houses or under elderly offender home detention. The CARES Act home confinees have not constituted much more than a dribble.

home210218The Times reported that “Danbury was singled out for prompt action” by Barr last April, “because it had seen an outbreak, [but] only about 100 inmates have been granted home confinement so far, many as recently as December. At least 550 are still under consideration, most of them convicted of nonviolent offenses like fraud or drug possession.”

It’s not like the problem is limited to Danbury, either. A California federal court found last summer that “[d]espite… the existence of emergency conditions facing the BOP as the result of the pandemic… there is no evidence Respondents are prioritizing their use of statutory authority under the CARES Act to grant home confinement to Lompoc inmates… or giving due consideration to inmates’ age or medical conditions in evaluating eligibility of home confinement.” And a New York federal court found that “rather than attempt to use home confinement, furloughs, and compassionate release as tools to reduce the density among the most vulnerable inmates, the prison chose to not pursue that path at all until well after the initial outbreak had subsided.”

In fact, at Danbury, the BOP settled a class action lawsuit by promising to expedite release of inmates to home confinement. But five months after the BOP and Danbury warden made the deal, a Connecticut federal court found they had “breached the provision of the Settlement Agreement requiring that they ‘endeavor to release individuals approved for home confinement to home confinement within 14 days of the approval decision.”

About 48,000 of the 105,000 inmates the BOP has tested (still, a year later, only 69% of its inmates have had the nose swab) have contracted COVID. This is despite the BOP’s self-lauded “multiphase action plan” to protect inmates and staff from COVID-19. A Pennsylvania federal court dryly observed that “[t]he government’s assurances that the BOP’s ‘extraordinary actions’ can protect inmates ring hollow given that these measures have already failed to prevent transmission of the disease.” The agency’s slow-walk implementation of CARES Act placement cases seems to be cut from the same cloth.

The COVID Curve: The BOP continued last week to report fewer COVID cases. Last Friday’s total of 1,414 was down 29% from the week before. Staff cases remain stubbornly high, 1,622 (down only 3% from the week before). COVID remains present at 128 facilities, up two from last week, but there have been no reported deaths in the last 7 days.

As of Friday, the BOP reported vaccination data for 78 facilities. It reports that about 34% of its 36,000 staff have been vaccinated, and 6.9% of inmates have gotten the shot (up from 5.3% last week). The number of vaccine doses the BOP says it has distributed suddenly froze last week at 58,300, after climbing steadily since January. This suggests the BOP is out of additional doses until it gets its next distribution.

comparison210228

Plotting the rise and fall in inmate COVID numbers against the national ebb and flow shows the graphs are nearly a perfect fit. This is troubling, because late last week, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that with relaxing restrictions and a spread of variant viruses, the declines since January “may be stalling, potentially leveling off at still a very high number. We at CDC consider this a very concerning shift in the trajectory.” The nation had an average of about 66,350 new daily coronavirus cases a day over the last week, higher than the week before which was 64,000 new cases a day.

If national numbers rise again, history suggests the BOP numbers will, too.

Equally troubling is the fact that BOP staff COVID cases have not shown the kinds of decline that inmate and national numbers have. Beyond that, it has taken the BOP over two months to get a mere one-third of its staff vaccinated. The likelihood that staff is the primary vector for spreading COVID inside facilities thus remains high.

Federal Register, Continuation of the National Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic (86 FR 11599, Feb 26, 2021)

CARES Act (Mar 26, 2020)

New York Times, Vulnerable Inmates Left in Prison as Covid Rages (Feb 27, 2021)

Torres v. Milusnic, 472 F.Supp.3d 713 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2020)

Fernandez-Rodriguez v. Licon-Vitale, 470 F.Supp.3d 323 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020)

Whitted v. Easter, Case No. 3:20-cv-569 (D.Conn. December 11, 2020), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232843

Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2020) (Cole, C.J., dissenting).

United States v. Rodriguez, 451 F.Supp.3d 392 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Los Angeles Times, New fears of next coronavirus wave as case declines slow and variants grow (February 27, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

‘How Are We Doing?’ Attorney General Asks (Rhetorically) – Update for January 5, 2021

Leave a comment

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

FIRST STEP REPORT ISSUED

The First Step Act required that starting in 2020, the Attorney General generate an annual report on the Bureau of Prisons’ implementation of the various provisions of the law. The AG issued the report two weeks ago, which reads more like a hagiography of First Step compliance than a dispassionate recitation of how rocky the road to First Step implementation has been.

awesome210105Example: The AG says the BOP and Department of Justice “also implemented and responded to changes the FSA made involving retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, compassionate release, and good conduct time.” If “implemented and responded to changes” means fighting compassionate release (10,929 out of 10,940 requests to the BOP for compassionate release denied) and Fair Sentencing Act reduction motions hammer-and-tong, DOJ and BOP have surely overperformed.

Surprisingly (or maybe not, given the political roar coming from Washington over the last two months), the First Step Report seems to have landed silently. Yet there are some interesting gold nuggets in the 59 pages of dross. I’m still reading it, and I’ll report more on it next week, but a few stats have jumped out already:

•      70% of all BOP inmates are designated to facilities within 500 miles of their release residences (but the Report does not compare this to the stats prior to passage of First Step);

•    the BOP has transferred over 19,000 people to home confinement since last March;

•         in 2020, one out of every four BOP inmates did not get any halfway house or home confinement prior to release

The most interesting tables I have seen so far are the recidivism tables. The Report found recidivism among people released under the First Step Act to be 11.3%, much less than the one-third or higher numbers usually cited. One curious finding: people who served less than 5 years had a recidivism rate of 10.9%; those serving between 5 and 10 years, 12.6%; those serving between 10 and 15 years, 13.1%; and those serving over 15 years, 7.8%.

tableB210105 copy

These stats present a strong argument about the deterrence value (or lack thereof) of sentences, a point which should be part of any 18 USC § 3553(a) analysis in a compassionate release or Fair Sentencing Act determination.

Dept of Justice, The Attorney General’s First Step Act Section 3634 Annual Report (December 21, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

It’s Who You Know – And Who Likes You – Update for July 29, 2020

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.

A TALE OF TWO CELEBRITY PRISONERS

I have talked to a number of federal inmates who were approved for home confinement by the Bureau of Prisons, only to be yanked back at the last minute because they had not served quite 50% of their full sentences. At last, there is hope! (Spoiler: I’m just kidding).

ICYMI, in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act – signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020 – Congress authorized the BOP to send inmates to home confinement at any time (not just in the last 10%/6 months of their sentences under 18 USC § 3624(c)) during a declared national emergency. That would include the current pandemic.

unabomber200730Congress specified no standards for selecting who should be sent to home confinement. Hypothetically, Ted Kaczynski could be sent home to stay inside for the rest of his natural life. But the Attorney General did establish some standards, such as the inmate has to qualify for low or minimum security (sorry, Ted), have good conduct, be nonviolent, and suffer from one or more CDC-identified risk factors for COVID-19.

Then, unwilling to leave the Attorney General’s standards alone, the BOP decided on its own that if the inmate had not served 50% of his or her total sentence (not just the sentence adjusted for good conduct, but the whole thing), he or she would not qualify to be sent home. One exception was if the inmate served 25% and had fewer than 18 months to go. Another exception was… well, let’s get to that.

Last week we saw another example of the BOP’s practice of treating high-profile prisoners different from everyone else.

In May, Paul Manafort was sent to home confinement after serving 27% of his sentence, with 53 months left to go. The BOP explained that while its standards required that inmates serve 50% of their total sentences, it had the “discretion” to make exceptions, which it did in Paul Manafort’s case (even though there was no COVID-19 at Manafort’s prison).

Put another notch in the BOP’s “discretion” belt. Last week, former Philadelphia-area U.S. Representative Shaka Fattah, sentenced to 10 years starting Jan 25, 2017, was released to home confinement from USP Canaan camp. As of last night, USP Canaan reported a single COVID-19 case, and has had only four others since March. The ex-Congressman has served 42 months, and has 60 months left until his good-time release.

cohen200730Compare this treatment to disfavored high-profile prisoners. Back in New York City, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen (who will not be furloughed to have Thanksgiving Dinner with the President) was yanked out of home confinement and sent back to FCI Otisville on July 9. The BOP said it was because he was trying to negotiate all of his home confinement conditions and was being difficult. Cohen and his lawyer said it was because the BOP was trying to make him agree to not talk to the media or write his tell-all book about President Trump, due out just before the election.

Last week, the ACLU filed a habeas corpus on behalf of Cohen, arguing he should be returned to home confinement because the BOP was violating his 1st Amendment rights. The government filed a detailed opposition that explained no one even knew Cohen was writing a book, and he was asked to sign a list of home confinement conditions that the probation officer, a newbie on the job, had gotten from a friend who had used it for other high-profile inmates sent to home confinement.

Last Thursday, a judge granted habeas corpus, and ordered Cohen returned to home confinement. “In 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people and looking at the terms and conditions of supervised release,” he said, “I have never seen such a clause… Why would the Probation Officer ask for something like this unless there was a purpose to it, unless there was a retaliatory purpose saying, ‘You toe the line about giving up your First Amendment rights or we will send you to jail,’” the judge asked.

The irony here is that both sides were right. There is no doubt that the 1st Amendment limitations the Probation Office sought to ram down Cohen’s throat were gross constitutional violations. Federal inmates in prison are entitled to write books (and can even sell them). Indeed, I have read a few inmate-written books, most of which were self-published and execrable.

book200730Likewise, I have no doubt that the Probation official who prepared the Cohen manuscript had no idea he was writing a book, nor did he imagine that he was creating a constitutional firestorm. Some of the grossest unconstitutional limitations on freedom I have ever seen appeared in terms of supervised release as interpreted by probation officers. Imagine living your life prohibited from using any Internet-connected device without prior approval of a Probation Officer. Or from having any contact with anyone who had ever been convicted of a crime (yeah, “crimes” including speeding).  Or accepting a job offer, buying a house or going to Paducah, Kentucky, on an overnight business trip.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Former Philly U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah came home early from prison. Federal officials won’t say why. (July 26)

The New York Times, Judge Orders Cohen Released, Citing ‘Retaliation’ Over Tell-All Book (July 23)

– Thomas L. Root

Are Some CARES Act Inmates More Equal That Others? – Update for May 28, 2020

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.

MEDIA, ADVOCACY GROUPS CALL OUT BOP ‘CRUEL INDIFFERENCE”

Word that the BOP was sending Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, from FCI Otisville to home confinement under the CARES Act has sparked widespread criticism of the BOP’s management of the home detention program.

ignore170816Cohen, serving a 36-month sentence, has not yet served half of his term. However, while the BOP has been closed-mouth about the release, it appears that as of May 22, he had served 25% and was within 18 months of his good-time release. Cohen was originally slated to go home last month, but he was pulled from the list because he had not met the BOP’s newly-ginned up minimum sentence requirements.

The Washington Post complained last Friday that the “disorganization” at the Bureau of Prisons has not been limited to Cohen. “Inmates in several institutions have complained that the agency has issued shifting, sometimes contradictory directives about who should be released, and applied the rules inconsistently… The bureau’s decisions on who gets out, though, have sparked considerable controversy. That was especially true for [one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul] Manafort, who had been imprisoned since 2018 and was serving a term of more than seven years.”

home190109Last week in Newsweek, a public defender and prison advocate wrote that “[w]e aren’t angry that Manafort will serve the remainder of his sentence from the comfort of his three-bedroom home in Northern Virginia with his family. Far from it: We are outraged that the exact same reasonable argument and urgent call for release made by the millions of other people caged in jails and prisons across the country—with the support of their families, public defenders, advocates, organizers and medical professionals—have been met with cruel indifference or derision by those with the power to do something.”

In a Massachusetts case heard last week, according to Law360, FMC Devens’ warden was testifying that an inmate seeking compassionate release had served less than half his sentence, and thus was not considered for CARES Act release.

“As the warden was testifying,” the judge said later, “the Bureau of Prisons evidently ordered an exception to this requirement for President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort even though he had only served 23 months of a 77-month sentence. Every person and case is unique, and Mr. Manafort may have health problems that place him at a particularly high risk. However, making an exception to the policy for him and refusing to consider… and other elderly inmates on the merits will raise reasonable questions about whether justice is indeed blind.”

Since the CARES Act passed at the end of March, the number of people in home confinement increased by only 2,578, about 1.5 percent of the nearly 171,000 people in federal prisons and halfway houses when the Act passed.

The latest rumored high-profile release was the past weekend’s rumbling that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, with 21 years left on a 27-year sentence, would be sent by the BOP to home detention for his remaining term. The widely-reported but unconfirmed release would send Kilpatrick to home confinement after about 25% of his sentence served. However, the BOP dashed the hopes of Kwame’s supporters Tuesday, when it announced that he would not be getting CARES Act home confinement:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, the federal Bureau of Prisons reviewed and denied inmate Kwame Kilpatrick for home confinement. Mr. Kilpatrick remains incarcerated at the federal correctional institution in Oakdale, Louisiana.

Kwame’s supporter might reasonably ask why Manafort could go to home confinement after serving 25% of his sentence, but Kilpatrick could not, especially where Manafort left a prison where there had been no COVID-19 while Kilpatrick languished in a veritable coronavirus petri dish.

compassion160124

Many prisoners are excluded from the home detention program by the BOP’s restrictive view of what constitutes a prior crime of violence and PATTERN risk assessment scores that aren’t “minimum.” Some of those prisoners are turning to compassionate release motions under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A). Since Trump signed the First Step Act in December 2018, only 144 people had been granted such release through April 1st. Since then, 268 prisoners nationwide received compassionate release.

The Dept of Justice has been reflexively fighting compassionate release motions. In a case decided last week, government lawyers called compassionate release a “Get Out of Jail Free Card” and referred to the pandemic as “a red herring.” DOJ contends that compassionate release is just judges micromanaging prisons, that the BOP knows best whom to release, and that the BOP’s COVID-19 Action Plan has controlled the pandemic and makes prison a safer place to be than at home.

The Marshall Project, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort Got to Leave Federal Prison Due to COVID-19. They’re The Exception (May 21)

The Washington Post, Michael Cohen released from federal prison over coronavirus concerns (May 21)

Newsweek, We’re Not Angry Paul Manafort Was Released. We’re Angry Millions of Others Weren’t (May 18)

Law360.com, Manafort’s Release Helps Spring Ex-NFL Lineman From Prison (May 15)

Detroit Free Press, COVID-19 outbreak that killed his fellow inmates will help set Kwame Kilpatrick free (May 22)

Detroit Free Press, Kwame Kilpatrick denied early release from federal prison (May 27)

– Thomas L. Root

No Pants, Sneaky Releases and Weird Numbers – Update for May 19, 2020

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.

JUDGE DEPANTS BOP CARES ACT EFFORTS, WHILE TRUMP BUDDY JUMPS HOME CONFINEMENT LINE

Last week’s top three developments in the BOP’s response to the coronavirus pandemic were a federal court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against FCI Danbury, the CARES Act release to home confinement of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the BOP’s unusual COVID-19 inmate numbers.

depants200519In Connecticut, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction ordering the FCI Danbury warden to promptly identify inmates with COVID-19 risk conditions and to begin aggressively evaluating requests by prisoners for transfer to home confinement or compassionate release. The judge ruled that the FCI Danbury administration had failed to carry out Attorney General William Barr’s April 3 memo ordering the BOP to “maximize” emergency authority granted by the March 28 CARES Act to release inmates to home confinement.

The Danbury inmates — men and woman confined at three facilities within the complex — complained in the lawsuit that the institution was intentionally dragging its feet on compliance with Barr’s memo. The inmates argued — and the court agreed — that prisoner releases or transfers are necessary to decrease congestion and permit adequate social distancing within the institution.

The order gives the Danbury warden less than two weeks to provide him with a list of inmates eligible for transfer to home confinement. In the case of the ineligible inmates, the judge ordered the prison to provide explanations. While the judge did not grant a preliminary injunction on inmate requests for mass transfer of inmates to other institutions or home confinement, and for appointment of a special master to enforce virus mitigation measures in the prison, but he ordered an expedited hearing schedule to take up the questions.

The 74-page order blasts Danbury’s chary use of CARES Act authority and compassionate release. In the suit, the BOP admitted that since March 19, FCI Danbury staff received 241 requests for compassionate release. Of these, 136 had been denied, 18 were returned to the inmate for further information, and 87 were still awaiting review. The court observed that

the figures make clear that the FCI Danbury staff has, to date, not granted a single request for compassionate release—a batting average that is dramatically less favorable to inmates than the frequency with which courts in this District are granting Section 3582 motions… This suggests that the Warden is setting an impossible high bar for these requests. Alternatively, it suggest that the Warden has not set a new standard for compassionate release in light of the pandemic, but is applying an obsolete one that takes no account of the risk of illness or death to medically vulnerable inmates from COVID-19.

Danbury’s use of CARES Act authority fared no better. “In spite of the explicit statutory authorization in the CARES Act to make widespread use of home confinement in response to the threat posed by COVID-19, and the exhortations of the head of the government department in which the Bureau of Prison sits,” the Court wrote, “the implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible.” Noting the Warden’s admission that only 159 inmates have been reviewed and a mere 21 inmates actually been placed on CARES Act home confinement, the Court said, “the criteria apparently being used by the Respondents to evaluate inmates for home confinement evidence a disregard for the seriousness of the health risk faced by vulnerable inmates…. In fact, the inmate bulletins make clear that those who have not served a specified percentage of their sentences are categorically disqualified: any inmate who has not served at least 50% of his or her sentence is deemed ineligible for home confinement, irrespective of vulnerability to COVID-19.”

Someone in the BOP must have read the Danbury order, because the very next morning, an inmate was sent to CARES Act home confinement who had only completed 25% of his sentence, and was not housed in a prison that had any COVID-19. Unfortunately for the BOP, the prisoner was named Paul Manafort.

linejump200519

Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, pled guilty in one federal case and was convicted after a trial in a second, and is about as high-profile as a federal prisoner can be. His release to home confinement in the predawn hours of last Wednesday spurred immediate denunciations of the unequal treatment of prisoners in a criminal justice system in which the wealthy and well-connected jump the line while millions of others are forced to face the spreading coronavirus pandemic with little or no hope of release.

The BOP explained that the agency “ha[s] wide discretion over who is granted home confinement,” the Des Moines Register reported. While there have been no reported cases of coronavirus at FCI Loretto, Manafort’s lawyers had previously argued that the “growing number of cases in Pennsylvania” meant it was “only a matter of time before the infection spreads to staff and inmates.” The attorneys said last month that high-risk inmates, such as their client, had to be removed from the prison before the virus arrived.

The Manafort home confinement is already being thrown in the face of U.S. Attorneys arguing against compassionate release on the grounds that the defendant has not served enough time, or that there is no coronavirus at the facility.

The BOP’s COVID-19 numbers took a puzzling dip last week. Following a tour of FCI Terminal Island Tuesday, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, D-California, said the conditions inside the prison fall short of the federal government’s responsibility to protect inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Apparently Barragán’s complaints did not fall upon deaf ears. As of Monday night, FCI Terminal Island was reporting 693 inmates sick with coronavirus. As soon as Barragán completed her visit, Terminal Island’s sick inmate count fell to 150 inmates, a 79% decrease.

Huffpost reported that “a proactive testing and segregation strategy that Bureau of Prisons officials and the Los Angeles Department of Public Health implemented late last month has seemingly produced a rapid reduction in the cases. Faced with the health crisis, officials took dramatic steps ― a lockdown of the facility, mandated testing of all prisoners, and separating inmates by their COVID-19 status.”

The BOP told Huffpost that an “aggressive testing and quarantine mitigation strategy” has led to the recovery of more than 567 inmates have recovered, while 130 remain infected. Eight Terminal Island inmates died in the pandemic.

crazynumbers200519A week ago, the BOP reported 3,385 inmate COVID-19 cases, with 48 dead. As of last night, there are 2,402 inmate cases. Eight more federal inmates died in the last week, bringing the death toll to 57. More ominously, the number of institutions with reported COVID-19 has climbed from 51 to 54 as of Sunday (but fell to 49 last night), and staff coronavirus cases climbed from 250 a week ago to 284 as of Sunday, before taking a dive to 196 last night.

The numbers seem to move of their own volition. As Reuters pointed out yesterday, “federal prisons, which typically limit testing to inmates with obvious symptoms, reported confirmed infections in fewer than 4,200 of their total inmate population of about 150,000, with 52 deaths.” As this blog has noted before, if you don’t test, you can’t count.

Rather crazy, but hardly reliable.

Long Beach, California, Post, Terminal Island is failing to protect inmates from COVID-19, congresswoman says after tour (May 13)

Hartford Courant, U.S. Judge backs prison inmates in Danbury on COVID-19 suit, orders warden to move fast on requests for release (May 12)

Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83300 (D.Conn. May 12, 2020)

Common Dreams, ‘Manafort Released. But [Insert Name] Still Locked Up’: Special Treatment for Trump Crony Denounced (May 13)

Des Moines Register, Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort released from prison amid coronavirus pandemic (May 13)

Daily Beast, Paul Manafort’s Prison Had No Coronavirus Cases. He Was Released Anyway. (May 13)

Huffpost, Lockdown At Terminal Island Federal Prison Curbs Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak (May 15)

– Thomas L. Root

Hoping the Caboose Stays Attached to the Train – Update for May 18, 2020

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.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUCKS INMATE COVID-19 RELIEF INTO HEROES ACT

caboose200518The House passed the HEROES Act of 2020, a $3 trillion coronavirus-relief package, last Friday by a narrow 208-199 vote. The measure marks the Democrats’ starting point for talks with Republicans and the White House on the next round of stimulus. Fourteen House Democrats, many of whom were elected in 2018 from swing districts, voted against it. One Republican, Peter King (New York), voted for the bill.

Republicans are saying the bill, H.R. 6800, has no prospect of passing the GOP-led Senate. “It’s a parade of absurdities that can hardly be taken seriously,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as having said Thursday night. McConnell said he had spoken recently with President Trump, and that they agree another bill is probably necessary but that “it’s not going to be a $3 trillion left-wing wish list like the speaker is apparently going to try to jam down the throats of her majority.”

Why do I care (except that my bride and I could use another $2,400 check)? I care because tucked into the bill starting at page 1683 (§ 191101), is the so-called Pandemic Justice Response Act. That section makes clear that the House of Representatives is not terribly impressed with the Bureau of Prisons’ efforts so far to reduce its inmate population because of COVID-19.

The House is not alone. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut minced no words about the BOP’s exercise (nonfeasance would be a better term) of its CARES Act authority to send FCI Danbury inmates to home confinement:

In spite of the explicit statutory authorization in the CARES Act to make widespread use of home confinement in response to the threat posed by COVID-19, and the exhortations of the head of the government department in which the Bureau of Prison sits, the implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible. The Warden indicates that only 159 inmates have been reviewed since March 26, and a mere 21 inmates have actually been placed on home confinement, out of a population of roughly 1,000. Moreover, the criteria apparently being used by the Respondents to evaluate inmates for home confinement evidence a disregard for the seriousness of the health risk faced by vulnerable inmates. Indeed, the most recent inmate bulletin regarding home confinement criteria does not even expressly mention health risks or how they will be evaluated… In fact, the inmate bulletins make clear that those who have not served a specified percentage of their sentences are categorically disqualified: any inmate who has not served at least 50% of his or her sentence is deemed ineligible for home confinement, irrespective of vulnerability to COVID-19. Other criteria in the inmate bulletins are similarly unrelated to medical vulnerability and, at best, only tangentially related to public safety. For example, any inmate with an incident report in the past 12 months—no matter the seriousness—is deemed ineligible for home confinement, regardless of any health condition he or she might have. At oral argument, the Government suggested that such an inmate could seek compassionate release as an alternative. But that is a dead end at FCI Danbury: Of the 241 requests for compassionate release filed since the COVID-19 crisis began, the Warden has signed off on exactly 0.

drno200518The HEROES Act seeks to solve the BOP’s unfortunate predisposition to read any grant of statutory discretion to be the right to say “no, no and hell, no!” by providing that the Bureau shall (not may but shall) send to home confinement anyone who is 50 or over, is within 12 months of release, or has a list of COVID-19 risk conditions. Those include pregnancy, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, HIV, cancer, sickle-cell anemia, respiratory problems or immune system weaknesses. The only exception are people determined by clear and convincing evidence to pose a specific and substantial risk of bodily injury to or to use violent force against another person.

What’s more, courts would be required to reduce sentences for people unless the government can show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a risk of “serious, imminent injury” to an identifiable person.

The Act also incorporates a reduction of the elderly offender home detention program sentence requirement (the subject of a separate bill that has already passed the House, H.R. 4018) to two-thirds of the sentence reduced by good time, instead of the current two-thirds of the whole sentence. This would make an elderly offender doing a 120-month sentence eligible for home confinement at 68 months rather than 80 months.

noplacelikehome200518Under CARES Act home confinement, all the BOP is doing is designating an inmate’s home as the place of imprisonment. Nothing prevents the BOP from redesignating an inmate on home confinement back to prison at the agency’s whim. The HEROES Act would prohibit reincarceration of people sent to home confinement for no better reason than the pandemic might be over.

The HEROES Act is an 1800-page train, leaving the Pandemic Justice Response Act to pretty much be the caboose. While everyone considers it likely some of the HEROES Act will be approved by the Senate, no one can be sure whether the caboose will still be attached to the train when the Act finally pulls into the station.

Wall Street Journal, House Narrowly Passes $3 Trillion Aid Package (May 16)

H.R. 6800, HEROES Act of 2020

– Thomas L. Root

It’s a Miracle! – Update for May 13, 2020

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.

MIRACULOUS DOINGS AT THE BOP

Yesterday brought two miracles at the Bureau of Prisons, one physical and one legal.

Following a tour of FCI Terminal Island yesterday, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, D-California, said the conditions inside the prison fall short of the federal government’s responsibility to protect inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m very concerned about what I saw in there,” Barragán said during a press conference. “The bottom line here is the federal government has a duty and an obligation to protect inmates and their health.”

Apparently Barragán’s complaints did not fall upon deaf ears. As of Monday night, FCI Terminal Island was reporting 693 inmates sick with coronavirus. As soon as Barragán completed her visit, Terminal Island’s sick inmate count fell to 150 inmates, an amazing 79%!

It’s a miracle! In a mere 24 hours, 543 inmates suddenly recovered from COVID-19! The Lord Himself could hardly have done better.

And some people wonder why no one believes the BOP’s numbers…

lackfaith200513Meanwhile, on the other coast, a legal miracle: we learn that as least as far as the BOP is concerned, George Orwell was right – some animals really are more equal than others.

Three weeks after the BOP told hundreds of inmates who had been tapped for home confinement under the CARES Act that they would not be going home after all, because of a heretofore unannounced BOP policy that required an inmate to serve 50% of the full sentence prior to CARES Act approval, inmate Paul Manafort was sent to home confinement from FCI Loretto after serving less than a third of his sentence.

FCI Loretto, of course, is a hotbed of infection, with a total of zero COVID-19 cases so far. 

According to news reports, “prison officials have wide latitude when considering these releases on a case-by-case basis.” “Discretion,” of course, means that some guys with 54 months yet to serve on a 71-month sentence can be sent home from a place that doesn’t have any coronavirus.

Is this a great country or what? If you wonder, check with all of those vulnerable inmates who were denied home confinement from places like Butner, Elkton, Terminal Island, Fort Worth and Lompoc because they had only served 45% of their sentences…

Long Beach, California, Post, Terminal Island is failing to protect inmates from COVID-19, congresswoman says after tour (May 13, 2020)

BOP, Coronavirus Map (May 13, 2020)
Yahoo.com, Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort released to home confinement amid coronavirus concerns (May 13)

– Thomas L. Root