Tag Archives: house judiciary committee

Carvajel’s Subcommittee Swan Song – Update for February 7, 2022

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 DIRECTOR’S FINAL HOUSE OVERSIGHT HEARING LARGELY A MARSHMALLOW FIGHT

Marshmallow220207Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal dumped numbers on a largely uncritical House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last Thursday, in what is likely the retiring Director’s final oversight hearing.

Committee chair Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) suggested fireworks to come when she opened the session wondering how the BOP could justify turning down inmates for compassionate release who later died of COVID. But the fireworks were largely a dud, as hard questions about criminal misconduct by BOP staff, lax security, and decrepit facilities – the reasons Associated Press gave for Carvajal’s resignation in the wake of Congressional pressure for his replacement – went unasked.

The Director’s play with numbers went unchallenged as well. His written statement reported that the Bureau has transferred more than 37,000 inmates to community custody, noting parenthetically that only about a quarter of those were transferred pursuant to the authority granted by the CARES Act. In his oral testimony, the Director truncated that to the BOP having “released over or transferred over 37,000 under the CARES Act to home confinement and community placement.”

The BOP has been bandying the 37,000 number about for a long time, used to lull legislators into thinking the agency had vigorously used its CARES Act authority. What it comes down to is that the BOP kept releasing people to halfway house/home confinement as usual but could only find under 7% of BOP inmates in custody who “qualified” for CARES Act placement over a 22-month period. The “qualifications” were those laid down by the Attorney General, with additional gloss (such as the inmate must have served 50% of his or her sentence). That means that 28,000 of that 37,000 number would have gone to halfway house or home confinement under normal end-of-sentence placement, even without the CARES Act.

Maybe the number misdirection doesn’t seem like such a big deal, but it’s emblematic of BOP culture. If the BOP’s professional judgment is that the CARES Act should be no more than the 7% solution, why not tell Congress “we released 9,000 people under the CARES Act, and if you wanted us to release more, you should have written the law differently.” Instead, the BOP leads with the 37,000 number, hoping that Congress doesn’t listen that carefully, and will think the BOP has done much more than it has. It is a tacit admission by the BOP that it knows it has been unreasonably chary in applying the CARES Act, and it hopes Congress doesn’t tumble to it.

pigfly220207Perhaps the next BOP director will be candid enough to own what his agency has done or not done with its authority. (See flying pig).

Carvajal also assured the Subcommittee that the BOP “continue[s] to screen inmates for appropriate placement on CARES Act” and that while the 50%-of-sentence standard is one of the “four hard criteria,” the BOP has “discretion – there usually is a higher-level review if the staff of the institution feels that it is appropriate outside of the CARES Act, we have procedures in place to review cases such as that…”  Call this the Manafort exception. Unfortunately, but for Paul Manafort’s CARES Act release in May 2020 (and former congressman Chaka Fattah in July 2020), the BOP has been steadfast in refusing to waive the 50% rule. It should be called the “who-you-know” exception.

who201229Responding to questions from Rep. Karen Bass (D-California), Carvajal said that 80% of the BOP staff was vaccinated, but only 95,000 out of 135,100 in-custody inmates had gotten the jab. His numbers are way off the BOP’s own website, which reports that 119,500 inmates are vaccinated – 78% – but only 70.4% of the BOP’s 36,739 employees have gotten the shot.

[Note to Mike: it’s easier to fudge the numbers when you’re not simultaneously making the real data available to anyone with a smartphone.]

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said the BOP had told his staff that 4,738 BOP employees (12.9% of the workforce) had gotten exemptions – mostly religious – from taking the vaccine, and groused that “it’s kind of it’s interesting that the inmates have more rights [to refuse vaccines] than the officers themselves.” No one knows what the Congressman might think if he knew the numbers Director Carvajal had given him were wrong. For what it’s worth, Congressman, if the BOP is getting rid of staff who refuse the vaccine, inmates would happily accept the same fate. 

One of the only tense moments in the hearing came when Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) braced Carvajal on conditions brought to her attention by the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls. Bush said:

In these emails, women in federal custody detail horrifying accounts of not being allowed to get out of their beds all day because of COVID lockdowns, being forced to eat expired food, having little to no access to medical services to treat cancers and other underlying conditions, having to pay $2.00 to file a sick complaint. This is all happening under your watch. These are complaints coming from not one or not two facilities but five different facilities, which makes clear that these issues are not isolated… These women cannot hold you accountable, Mr. Carvajal, they cannot, but we can, and I would like to use this opportunity to ask you questions that they cannot directly ask you out of fear of retaliation.

schultz220207The Director responded, “I’m not aware of those particular complaints, but I’m certainly interested in hearing from you and your staff so that we can look into them, because I find that – if that happened – I find it unacceptable.” He assured Bush that “we take all allegations seriously…” Not that I disagree – I would never dispute what the BOP director says – but I have hundreds of emails from inmates who beg to differ.

Carvajal explained to the legislators, “I’d like to stress something – we’re not here for punishment, the taking of their time by the courts and the criminal justice system, that’s the punishment, we’re here to house people that are remanded to our custody and more importantly to prepare them to reenter society, keep them safe while they’re here. We’re not here as punishment, that’s not how we look at this agency.”

The hearing had a few other bumps. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) complained that the BOP “has unfortunately failed to protect the health of those within their custody and their staff from COVID-19 or address chronic understaffing [and] the BOP has also lacked transparency and vigor and implementing important criminal justice reforms such as the First Step Act.”

Jackson-Lee raised the reports filed by epidemiologist Homer Venters, M.D., on MDC Brooklyn and FCC Lompoc. She noted that “his investigation revealed [a] disturbing lack of access to care when a new medical problem is encountered…” Venters noted that at MDC Brooklyn, “it quickly became apparent that not only were many people reporting that their sick call requests, including COVID-19 symptoms, were being ignored, but that the facility was actually destroying their original request which violates basic correctional standards. [T]his is an accountability hearing… these are human beings deserving of respect and dignity, men and women…”

Carvajal said he was “aware of the report, we looked into it, we followed up, I won’t discuss that specific incident, but I will reassure you that each of our institutions has an outpatient health clinic that’s overseen by a board-certified physician and a medical director. We have outside oversight… If there’s a mistake made or something of that nature, we’re going to look into it and do something about it correct the issue.”

potemkin220207He did not mention and the Subcommittee did not note that the BOP’s “follow-up” consisted of vigorously contesting every aspect of Venters’ report in litigation over MDC Brooklyn.

It may not be much of a plan to testify before a subcommittee hoping that the legislators haven’t done their homework. But Director Carvajal seems to have capped his career doing just that, and with some success.

Statement of Michael Carvajal, House Committee on Judiciary (Feb 3, 2022)

Hearing, Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Feb 3, 2022)

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

– Thomas L. Root

… And Venter Vents – Update for January 25, 2022

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 SUBCOMMITTEE WITNESSES SAVAGE BOP’S COVID RESPONSE

venters220125Witnesses blasted BOP healthcare, CARES Act and compassionate release response, and the PATTERN score at a House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security hearing on what Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) called “BOP’s troubling response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its inability to protect inmates and staff adequately.”

Nadler, who is chairman of the full House Committee on the Judiciary, said the BOP has a “duty to ensure basic protections for those in our custody” and “to make sufficient use of the authority granted to it under the CARES Act to place certain prisoners at home confinement earlier than previously permitted by statute…”

Epidemiologist Homer Venters, who has inspected some 40 prisons since the pandemic began, testified that “my greatest area of concern is that pre-existing deficiencies in the health services provided to people in BOP custody which contributed to the spread and lethality of COVID-19 remain unaddressed… My investigations have real revealed a disturbing lack of access to care when a new medical problem is encountered.”

Additionally, he argued that “there’s a compelling and unrealized rationale for release of high-risk patients who pose minimal public safety risks. This approach is even more important now to consider during the omicron outbreaks because of the tremendous lack of staffing inside facilities.”

death200330Venters faulted the lack of any independent review and assessment of reported COVID-19 deaths “including those that occurred in private facilities,” a number the BOP has been careful to erase from its count since contracts with those facilities lapsed. He argued that “the lack of independent assessment in how [inmate COVID] deaths are reviewed and more broadly the lack of meaningful oversight by a health organization” is a fundamental problem.

“Every other sector of health care in the United States has independent and professional health organizations reviewing the quality of care,” Venters told the Subcommittee, “but in the BOP and other carceral spaces we leave those crucial assessments to law enforcement to review its own provision of health care… The BOP is left to make its own assessments about the quality and scope of his health care and only sporadic investigations by the Inspector General of the Dept of Justice provide alternative viewpoints. This is wholly insufficient and leaves incarcerated people at a systemic disadvantage because the organizations and structures that measure and promote health for the rest of the nation for the rest of us are excluded from the care people receive in the BOP.”

University of Iowa law professor Allison Guernsey echoed the problems with the BOP’s self-reporting of inmate COVID numbers. “There are serious questions about the veracity of the BOP’s infection and death data. Not only do these questions cast doubt on the handling of the pandemic but they have real-world impact on the adjudication of compassionate release motions.”

She noted that the BOP has delayed reporting some COVID deaths for as much as a year, and that even now, Freedom of Information Act data she obtained from the BOP show five inmate deaths that the BOP has never publicly acknowledged. What’s more, she said, BOP numbers “don’t include anyone who died in a privately managed facility with a federal contract [which she reported totaled 17] and… it excludes people who were granted compassionate release just in time to die free.” Furthermore, she testified, “the Bureau of Prisons has admitted that its cumulative infection rate doesn’t include anyone who caught COVID and was then released from prison.”

With Guernsey’s additional numbers, the BOP’s inmate COVID death total is at least 301 inmates.

funwithnumbers170511Guernsey observed that “the accuracy of the data matters” because “courts rely on it routinely in granting compassionate release, and if a judge misjudges the COVID risk based on inaccurate data, people that we know are medically vulnerable will be left in prison to die.” She asked the Subcommittee to take steps to “require the BOP to report accurate and verifiable data. We should require them to do this for deaths and for infections, and we should require the BOP to comply with the mandates already articulated in the First Step Act by requiring them to report to this Committee and Congress what they are doing with respect to compassionate release procedures.”

[Editor’s aside: If the BOP accountants who diddle daily with the agency’s COVID numbers were in private industry, they’d have done the perp walk by now.]

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Hearings: The First Step Act, The Pandemic, and Compassionate Release: What Are the Next Steps for the Federal Bureau of Prisons? (Jan 21)

– Thomas L. Root

Did the BOP’s New ETC Rules Get Hijacked By Biden? – Update for January 18, 2022

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.

THE UNSEEN HAND WRITES NEW BOP EARNED TIME RULES?

The Federal Bureau of Prisons last week announced final rules for granting federal time credits (“FTCs”) to inmates who successfully complete specified programs designed to reduce recidivism or engage in what the statute calls “productive activities.”

In November 2020, the BOP finally got around to proposing rules for granting FTCs under the incentives program authorized two years before in the First Step Act. The agency proposed a rule that would require 240 classroom hours of successful programming in order for an inmate to receive a mere 15 days credit on his or her sentence. At the time, I said, “In the BOP, a 500-hour program takes 12-18 months to complete. That may seem like a fairly substantial commitment for a month more of home confinement. But it is consistent with what we’ve come to expect from the BOP: given a chance to interpret the extent of its authority to be lenient, it invariably interprets that authority in the most chary way possible.”

[Editor’s note: Yes, I said “most chary.” My wife the grammarian, has since pointed out that the superlative of “chary” is “chariest.” I’d fire her, but she’s been right too many times before.]

icecreamsundae210118In my experience practicing administrative law back in the day, when an agency rolled out proposed rules in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment, the final product looked a lot like what had been proposed, perhaps with a tweak here and there. Once in a blue moon, an agency might back off after an especially loud and sustained hue and cry from the industry and public, but rulemaking was a lot like ordering an ice cream sundae – you could specify which sprinkle, nuts, sauce, and cherry you wanted on it, but the 95% of it that was ice cream was fixed and was not going to change.

The history of agency rulemaking since the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 makes what happened to the FTC rules so puzzling. It’s like the BOP specified an ice cream sundae, but delivered a cup of mashed potatoes and gravy instead.

The new rules, already being applied to hundreds if not thousands of inmates, represent a total repudiation of the BOP’s proposed rules announced a year ago.

I reported on the changes in the rules – the “what” – last Friday. What I didn’t talk about was the “why.” Even now, I am unsure of what caused the sea change at the BOP, but there are some hints. Traditionally, the BOP director has scrambled to imprint any favorable program with his or her initials. Yet, last week, BOP Director Michael Carvajal was strangely silent, while Attorney General Merrick Garland took a victory lap in a press release. The fact that the Attorney General issued a statement supporting the new rules, but Carvajal did not, suggests that the Biden DOJ grabbed hold of the FTC process after the BOP sought to impose Draconian limitations on the program.

sycophant220118Several members of Congress – such as Richard Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Cornyn, (R-TX) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), on the Senate side, and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), on the House side – criticized the proposed rules in public comments. That may have played a factor as well. The BOP’s report adopting the final rule mentioned their comments, such as this excerpt from Sens. Whitehouse’s and Cornyn’s filing:

The proposed rule’s definition of a “day” of program participation does not adequately reward engagement with [EBBR programs] and PAs consistent with the First Step Act. . . Because BOP programs do not run for eight hours per day, the proposed rule would require individuals to attend an EBRR or PA for several calendar days before they earned a full “day” of time credit. . . It was not our intent as drafters of the legislation that BOP define a “day” in this way. Nor did Congress ever consider it. . . The proposed rule’s narrow definition of a “day” does not adequately incentivize program participation and reduce recidivism as intended by the First Step Act.

The fact that the legislators’ comments were singled out approvingly – maybe even fawningly – in the report would permit a reasonable person to infer that the BOP was sending the two Judiciary Committees a message that their concerns were being addressed.

The Hill noted that the new rules were announced “just one week after the DOJ revealed that BOP Director Michael Carvajal would be resigning from his post. He had faced criticism during his time as chief of the bureau.” Fox News said “the Biden administration has faced increased pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to do more to put in place additional aspects of the First Step Act, and the bureau has been accused of dragging its feet.” Associated Press observed that the final rules came “about two months after the department’s inspector general sounded an alarm that the Bureau of Prisons had not applied the earned time credits to about 60,000 federal inmates who had completed the programs.”

It seemed strange that several media outlets connected the Director’s departure with the release of the rules. It is fair to note that there is no logical reason for his announcing the retirement on January 6th, especially when the actual date was left open (he said he would stay on until a new director is appointed). The timing, as The Hill implied, may be linked to the dramatic turn in the BOP’s approach to FTCs.

bidensuperman210201

Likewise, Fox News may have settled on another reason. President Biden has taken a lot of heat recently for doing nothing on criminal justice reform. Probably because he has done nothing. Hijacking the rules and rewriting them the way Congressional Democrats would love and Congressional Republicans would accept may have been seen by the White House as a cheap fix: liberal FTC rules did not require Congressional approval and conservatives could hardly complain, because all Biden was doing was carrying forward a program President Trump proudly owned, the First Step Act.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining that the BOP did the right thing. I’m puzzled, that’s all.

Associated Press, Thousands of federal inmates to be released under 2018 law (January 13, 2022)

Dept of Justice, Justice Department Announces New Rule Implementing Federal Time Credits Program Established by the First Step Act (January 13, 2022)

BOP, Final Rules for Federal Time Credits Program (January 13, 2022)

BOP, FSA Time Credits (January 13, 2022)

The Hill, Thousands of federal inmates being released this week under law signed by Trump (January 13, 2022)

Fox News, Federal inmates to be released under ‘time credits’ program (January 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Yes, We’re Back From Vacation… and the House Has Been Busy – Update for July 23, 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.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PASSES EQUAL ACT ON TO FULL HOUSE

The House Committee on the Judiciary approved the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act (HR 1693) on Wednesday by a 36-5 vote, making the measure the leading contender for the first criminal justice reform bill to be passed by the 117th Congress.

crackpowder191216

The EQUAL Act would eliminate the federal crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity and retroactively apply it to those already convicted or sentenced. The sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine, at one point as high as 100 to 1, helped fuel the mass incarceration epidemic; 77.1% of crack cocaine trafficking offenders were Black, whereas most powder cocaine trafficking offenders were either white or Hispanic, according to a Fiscal Year 2020 report from the USSentencing Commission.

Even under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2021, which was intended to reduce the ratio to 1:1, compromises made to satisfy certain troglodytes in the Senate (yes, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, we’re talking about you) imposed an 18:1 ratio. That ratio meant that while one must be convicted of a crime involving 500 grams of cocaine to qualify for a minimum five-year sentence, a mere 28 grams of crack is enough to earn a defendant the same sentence.

The EQUAL Act was introduced earlier this year by Senators Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), as S.79. Beyond getting rid of the disparity, the bill would entitle those previously convicted of drug offenses to request a sentence reduction (which, like prior retroactive sentencing changed) would permit the sentencing judge to exercise discretion on granting or denying a lower sentence.

“For over three decades, unjust, baseless and unscientific sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine have contributed to the explosion of mass incarceration in the United States and disproportionately impacted poor people, Black and Brown people, and people fighting mental illness,” Booker said.

congress210723For those readers who skipped government class in high school, HR 1693 must still be voted on by the House of Representatives, just as the Senate version (S.79) – while receiving a lot of happy talk during a June 22 hearing – must be passed out of Committee and then put on the full Senate’s calendar. As of today, the measure is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee executive meeting calendar. As FAMM put it in an email blast yesterday, “The EQUAL Act goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote next, and then must be passed by the Senate and signed by President Biden before it can become law. The fight isn’t even close to over yet.”

House Judiciary Committee, Markup of H.R. 1693 (July 22, 2021)

Brooklyn Eagle, House Committee Passes EQUAL Act (July 22, 2021)

Regina, Saskatchewan, Leader-Post, U.S. politician wants everyone to ‘get real’ and admit weed doesn’t enhance performance, except maybe for hot dog eating (July 22, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root