Tag Archives: Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act

Sentencing Commission Announces Slate of Fall Amendments – Update for April 22, 2024

Leave a comment

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

SENTENCING COMMISSION TAKES A WHACK AT ACQUITTED CONDUCT

The US Sentencing Commission last week adopted a slate of proposed amendments to the Guidelines, finally addressing the acquitted conduct issue that has bedeviled the Commission and Supreme Court for the past two years.

can230407SCOTUS sidestepped the question last year, sitting on 13 certiorari petitions raising the question of whether sentencing for acquitted conduct – that is, conduct for which a defendant has been found not guilty by a jury – is constitutional. At the prodding of the Dept of Justice – which told the Supremes that they should let the Sentencing Commission handle it only to then tell the Sentencing Commission it lacked the power to do so – SCOTUS finally denied the cert petitions last July, with several justices saying they would wait for the Sentencing Commission to address the issue.

The acquitted conduct Guidelines amendment will redefine “relevant conduct” under USSG § 1B1.3 to exclude conduct for which a defendant was acquitted in federal court. Because judges must rely on “relevant conduct” to set the Guidelines sentencing range, the change is significant.

For example, if a defendant is convicted of distributing cocaine but acquitted of selling heroin, the amount of heroin that the government said he had sold currently be factored into his Guidelines range as long as the judge found it more likely than not that he had actually sold it. The proposed amendment would prohibit counting the heroin regardless of whether the judge thought the defendant had done it or not.

“Not guilty means not guilty,” Sentencing Commission Chairman Judge Carlton W. Reeves, who sits on the Southern District of Mississippi bench, said. “By enshrining this basic fact within the federal sentencing guidelines, the Commission is taking an important step to protect the credibility of our courts and criminal justice system.”

reeves230706Commissioners were divided on whether to consider enforcing the acquitted conduct sentencing amendment retroactively. A majority voted to have the USSC staff prepare a retroactivity impact analysis, which is the initial step toward making an amendment retroactive.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a press release, applauded the Commission’s vote, noting that it came after he and Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023. The legislation would have prohibited judges from using conduct acquitted by a jury. The measure has not gained consideration the full Senate.

The Commission is allowed to grant retroactivity – which lets people already sentenced according to Guidelines that are now being amended go back to court to secure the benefit of the amendment in the form of a reduced sentence – on new defendant-friendly amendments. Ratroactivity on last fall’s criminal history amendments was vigorously opposed by some commissioners and the DOJ, which has an ex officio representative on the Commission. This time around, the Commission is considering whether to make multiple defendant-friendly changes retroactive:

• the acquitted conduct amendment;

• a change to juvenile sentences that eliminates adding 2 points for prior juvenile incarcerations of more than 60 days;

• a change to §2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) to provide that the 4-level enhancement gun serial number obliteration applies only if the serial number has been modified such the original number is “is rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye;” and

• a change to Commentary in §2K2.4 to permit grouping of 922(g) gun count with drug trafficking count where the defendant has a separate 18 USC 924(c) conviction based on drug trafficking.

During the retroactivity vote, Commissioner Claire Murray – a former Trump administration DOJ official – made the obvious point that judges may also still rely on acquitted conduct at sentencing when considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, which courts must consider at sentencing, regardless of the Guidelines advisory sentencing range.

The bad news in the amendments was pretty much expected. For economic crimes, the recommended sentence under the guidelines increases dramatically as the amount of loss resulting from the offense increases.

shakeitoff240423As it is now written, the loss is defined in the Guidelines commentary as the higher of actual loss or intended loss. If you try to steal the Hope Diamond from the Smithsonian (value $250 million) but only get a rhinestone imitation (value $250) because the real one had been rented out to Taylor Swift for the weekend, the Smithsonian’s actual loss would be just a few bucks, but the intended loss would be a quarter billion.

In 2022, the 3rd Circuit held in United States v. Banks that the Commentary expanded the definition of loss beyond the ordinary meaning of “actual loss,” and thus, “intended loss” could not be used to set a defendant’s Guidelines. The new loss amendment moves the commentary section into the actual guideline, making sure that intended loss is included in setting the Guideline sentencing range and allowing the use of gain from the offense as a substitute for loss.

Whether the changes will become retroactive depends in part on USSC data on how many prisoners would be eligible for a reduction. If the number is too high, the Commission becomes concerned that the courts will be overwhelmed with reduction motions.

Finally, unhappy that the Commission last year adopted a new compassionate release guideline and made the criminal history guidelines retroactive on a 4-3 vote, Sen John Kennedy (R-LA) last week introduced the Consensus in Sentencing Act to require that changes to the Guidelines get at least five votes out of the seven Commissioners.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said it “cannot be pure coincidence” that Kennedy introduced the bill the day before last week’s USSC meeting. The bill stands little chance of passing before Congress expires at the end of the year.

Reuters, US panel prohibits judges from sentencing for ‘acquitted conduct’ (April 17, 2024)

Law360, Sentencing Commission Limits Acquitted Conduct Sentencing (April 17, 2024) 

Press release, Durbin Applauds Sentencing Commission’s Unanimous Vote To Prohibit Acquitted Conduct From Being Used In Sentencing Guidelines (April 18, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Senator Kennedy introduces “Consensus in Sentencing Act” to increase USSC votes needed for guideline amendments (April 16, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Acquitted Conduct Rides Again on Capitol Hill – Update for November 7, 2023

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 COMMITTEE SENDS ACQUITTED CONDUCT BILL TO FULL HOUSE

The House of Representative Committee on the Judiciary last Wednesday unanimously approved the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023 (H.R. 5430). Spearheaded by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), the bipartisan measure was approved 23-0.

acquitted230106

In September, Cohen introduced the bipartisan measure with Rep Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), with Sens Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) introducing a companion bill, S.2788, in the Senate. This legislation would end the practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted. It will now advance to the full House of Representatives for a floor vote. The Senate has yet to act on the measure.

During markup of the bill, Cohen said, “Just about every Supreme Court Justice who’s been around lately – John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia… Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Clarence Thomas, going down to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have all said this needs to be changed. So with that I would ask that we… arrive at justice. People should be convicted of proven crimes and sentenced for those crimes.”

The Sentencing Commission considered prohibited acquitted conduct from being used in sentencing last winter but decided the issue needed more review. On June 30, the Supreme Court denied review on 13 different cases raising the issue.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last week that “this notable vote committee certainly does not ensure Congress will get this bill to the desk of the President, but it should serve as a strong message to the U.S. Sentencing Commission that it should have bipartisan support for any acquitted conduct reforms it might be considering during its current amendment cycle.”

H.R. 5430, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023

S. 2788, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023

Sentencing Law and Policy, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act receives unanimous bipartisan support in US House Judiciary Committee (November 3, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

‘Acquitted Conduct’ Act is Back – Update for Wednesday, September 20, 2023

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.

COMING AROUND AGAIN

The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023 (HR 5430) – looking a lot like the doomed 2021 version – landed in the Congressional bill hopper last week.

acquitted230106Reps Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) introduced a House version and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sen Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the bipartisan, bicameral bill on the Senate side. The legislation would end the practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted by a jury.

“The right of criminal defendants to be judged by a jury of their peers is a founding principle of our criminal justice system spelled out in the Constitution. Allowing federal judges to enhance sentences for defendants based on conduct for which they were acquitted by a jury is not right and must end,” said Cohen, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court, despite signals over the past decade that it would address acquitted conduct sentencing as a 6th Amendment violation, denied certiorari to a baker’s dozen cases on the last day of last term, after sitting on petitions seeking review for months. The US Sentencing Commission has named review of such sentencing as a priority for review in the coming year.

The Act would amend 18 USC § 3661 to preclude a court from considering, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence, acquitted conduct at sentencing.

“Acquitted conduct” would include acts for which a person was adjudicated not guilty after trial or dismissed on an FRCrimP 29 motion for acquittal.

HR 5430, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023

Press Release, Cohen, Armstrong, Durbin and Grassley Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act (Sep 13)

– Thomas L. Root

Will Sentencing Based on Acquitted Conduct Get Supreme Court Review – Update for January 6, 2023

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.

PUSH TO GET SCOTUS TO TAKE ‘ACQUITTED CONDUCT’ MAY BEAR FRUIT

A probable Supreme Court decision today on granting review to McClinton v. United States is gaining media notice.

McClinton examines sentencing for acquitted conduct, a judicial phenomenon described by the Associated Press as giving defendants “additional prison time for crimes that juries found they didn’t commit.”

Sentencing a defendant for what’s called “acquitted conduct” has gone on for years, based on United States v. Watts, a 1997 Supreme Court decision. There, a divided Court in a summary disposition held that use of acquitted conduct at sentencing does not offend the 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.

acquitted230106Maybe not. “But lower courts,” petitioner McClinton complains in his request for SCOTUS review, “have long misinterpreted Watts to foreclose all constitutional challenges to the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, including under the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the 6th Amendment’s right to trial by jury.”

Since Watts, the high court has rejected several petitions asking for review of the question of whether using acquitted conduct at sentencing is unconstitutional. Nine years ago, Justice Scalia – joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg – highlighted the need for the Supreme Court “to put an end to the unbroken string of cases disregarding the Sixth Amendment” by enhancing sentences based on acquitted conduct, proclaiming in a dissent to the denial of review in another case. Scalia bluntly wrote, “This has gone on long enough.”

Scalia and Ginsburg have since died, but two other justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, voiced concerns about using acquitted conduct at sentencing while serving as appeals court judges. “Allowing judges to rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to impose higher sentences than they otherwise would impose seems a dubious infringement of the rights to due process and to a jury trial,” Kavanaugh wrote in United States v. Bell, a 2015 D.C. Circuit case.

scotus161130With the addition of Justice Ketanji Jackson, a former public defender (who also served on the Sentencing Commission), to the Supreme Court, there now could be the 4th vote needed to take up the issue, according to Ohio State law professor Doug Berman, a sentencing law expert and author of one of the four briefs on file support McClinton’s bid for SCOTUS review.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S.601) in June 2021, which would have stopped the use of such conduct in federal sentencing. The bill never was voted on by the full Senate, however, and died last Tuesday when the 117th Congress expired.

The McClinton petition for certiorari has some horsepower behind it, having collected six amicus briefs supporting review, including one from 17 retired federal judges who say that based on their combined 300 years “experience as Article III judges… [we] emphasize the unfairness of the sentence in this case. [McClinton’s] district court relied upon acquitted conduct to essentially quadruple the defendant’s sentencing range, and its decision reflects a more widespread problem in the criminal justice system.”

The Supreme Court will announce decisions made in today’s conference on Monday.

AP, Supreme Court asked to bar punishment for acquitted conduct (December 28, 2022)

McClinton v. United States, Case No. 21-1557 (petition for certiorari, filed June 10, 2022)

United States v. Bell, 808 F.3d 926 (D.C. Cir., 2015)

Jones v United States, 135 S.Ct. 8 (2014) (dissent from denial of certiorari)

S.601, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (117th Congress)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Fingers crossed that SCOTUS might review acquitted conduct sentencing enhancements (December 28, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Blue Christmas for Criminal Justice Reform – Update for December 27, 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.

LISAStatHeader2smallSanta
SENTENCE REFORM DIES WITH 117TH CONGRESS

Sentencing reform is dead for another two years.

bluechristmas221227Of all the criminal justice reform bills in Congress – the First Step Implementation Act (S.1014), the Smarter Sentencing Act (S.1013), the COVID-19 Safer Detention Act (S.312), the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act (S.601), the EQUAL Act (S.79) and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (H.R. 3617) – exactly none made it past the Senate during the two-year Congress that ends in a week. Zero. Zip. Bupkis.
With both the House nor Senate closed for a Christmas-Passover-Kwanzaa-New Year’s vacation until next Tuesday, the 117th Congress is done. It’s the legislative equivalent to taking a knee in the final minute of a football game. The clock’s running out.

runoutclock221227It was clear last summer that the First Step Implementation Act, the Smarter Sentencing Act, the COVID-19 Safer Detention Act (and the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act were going nowhere. But some marijuana and cocaine reform – even though it was not quite what was in the MORE Act and EQUAL Act that passed the House – looked likely as late as last week. However, despite bipartisan support for both bills, Senate Republicans shot them down, but with plenty of help from Senate Democrats and the Biden Administration.

As for marijuana, the Senate’s failure to act comes as a repudiation of Biden’s efforts for pot reform. In October, the president pardoned thousands of people convicted of simple marijuana possession (although no one pardoned was in federal prison) and said his administration would review how the drug is categorized.

The MORE Act would have allowed cannabis companies to open bank accounts and would have retroactively permitted changes in pot-based sentences. But efforts were severely hobbled last fall when Senate Majority Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced their own version of weed reform, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (S.4591).

Either MORE or CAOA would have been good for prisoners, but Democratic leadership’s push of an alternative bill diluted the groundswell of support needed to get MORE passed. By last week, the only hope was for banking reform – nothing for federal prisoners – but even that was exempted from last week’s giant end-of-year spending bill, the last chance it had for passage.

congressgradecard221227If anything, the EQUAL Act’s failure was a bigger disappointment. Aimed at reducing the disparity in sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine offenses by making crack and powder sentences the same, it would have benefitted thousands of prisoners with retroactive relief. EQUAL passed the House with bipartisan support and had what seemed to be a veto-proof majority of 50 Democrat supporters and 11 Republican Senate co-sponsors.

Then, Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and introduced his SMART Cocaine Sentencing Act (S. 4116), which watered down EQUAL and put retroactivity in the hands of the Dept of Justice.

Still, EQUAL had a chance until Sen Tom Cotton (R–AR) single-handedly stopped the Senate from considering the bill last Wednesday. EQUAL, like the marijuana-friendly SAFE Banking Act was proposed as an addition to the catch-all spending package, an effort that Cotton frustrated.

Sen. Booker then sought unanimous consent to release the stand-alone version of the EQUAL Act from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Cotton, a hardline prohibitionist described by Beforeitsnews.com as someone “who has never met a drug penalty he thought was too severe,” objected. Sen. Booker’s “hail Mary” fell short.

Still, it appeared up until a week ago that some crack cocaine relief would be jammed into the giant end-of-year spending bill. Reuters reported a week ago that Senate negotiators had reached a potential compromise.

timing221227But then, Attorney General Merrick Garland picked the middle of the negotiations to issue a memo directing federal prosecutors to “promote the equivalent treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses” in two ways. If they decide that a mandatory minimum should be charged, they should “charge the pertinent statutory quantities that apply to powder cocaine offenses.” And at sentencing, “prosecutors should advocate for a sentence consistent with the guidelines for powder cocaine rather than crack cocaine.”

Grassley was enraged, blasting the Garland memo as demanding that “prosecutors ignore the text and spirit of federal statutes [and] undermining legislative efforts to address this sentencing disparity.” And just like that, when the text of the 4,000-page, $1.7 trillion spending bill was released, the watered-down EQUAL Act was nowhere to be found.

“It is a searing indictment of a broken Beltway when a bill that passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, endorsed by law enforcement and civil rights leaders alike, with 11 Republican co-sponsors and filibuster-proof majority support in the Senate, and an agreement between the relevant committee Chairman and Ranking Member for inclusion in the end-of-year package, fails to make it to the President’s desk,” Holly Harris, president and executive director of the Justice Action Network, said. “The American people deserve better.”

FAMM vice president Molly Gill wants to see the EQUAL Act reintroduced next session. The politics are hard to predict: Democrats have one more seat in the Senate, while Republicans will take narrow control of the House.

The fact that a large number of House Republicans joined Democrats in passing the EQUAL Act last year is not reassuring: the trick will be getting a Republican speaker – who controls what comes up for a vote – put the bill in front of the chamber.

Any bill now pending in the House or Senate that has not passed will disappear on Jan 3, when the new 2-year Congress – the 118th – convenes. And we will start all over again, but with a much unfriendlier House of Representatives.

New Republic: Three Incredibly Popular Things That Congress Chose to Leave Out of the Spending Bill (December 20, 2022)

Reason, Congress Yet Again Fails To Pass Crack Cocaine Sentencing Reforms (December 20, 2022)

Marijuana Moment, Schumer’s “last ditch” cannabis banking push (December 19, 2022)

Reason, Merrick Garland’s New Charging Policy Aims To Ameliorate the Damage His Boss Did As a Drug Warrior (December 19, 2022)

Beforeitsnews.com, The Failure To Enact Marijuana Banking and Crack Sentencing Reforms Is a Window on Congressional Dysfunction (December 22, 2022)

Filter, The Limits of AG’s Guidelines Against Crack-Powder Sentencing Disparity (December 21, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2smallSanta

Congress is Back, Criminal Justice Reform Is Not – Update for September 20, 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.

LEGISLATORS GENERATING HEAT BUT NOT LIGHT

Both Houses of Congress are back from summer vacation. Criminal justice reform measures are pending (and may be poised for passage). Except midterm elections are 49 days away, and no one up for re-election is anticipating any traction from being in favor of helping out prisoners.

Anyone who wants to know what the Senate thinks of convicted persons needs look no further than last week’s 47-50 rejection of former Federal Public Defender Arianna J. Freeman as a 3rd Circuit appellate judge. Freeman was criticized by Senate Judiciary Republicans last March, when the Judiciary Committee did not approve her nomination, because of her success in overturning a death row inmate’s sentence. Critics called her a “zealot” for fighting capital punishment.

Freeman said that her office represented the man “as was our duty… Ultimately, Mr. Williams actually prevailed both in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Pennsylvania courts because of unlawfulness that took place during the course of his conviction. My colleagues and I pursued those available arguments under the law and we did prevail.”

Winning cases matters to the Senate – unless you represent criminal defendants. To the Senate, her success was her failing.

dema160222Nothing is easier to demagogue than being tough on crime.

The two criminal justice reform measures most likely to pass are the EQUAL Act (S.79) and the MORE Act (HR 3617). Last week, the Washington Post expressed pessimism over whether the EQUAL Act – which would equalize sentences for crack and powder cocaine – could pass. “The measure has stalled over concerns that Republicans could push for divisive amendments,” the Post said. “As the Senate juggles a number of measures ahead of November’s midterm elections, advocates worry that the window for action is closing. Democrats should continue to push for the Equal Act — but also be open to compromise if necessary. A possible middle ground might involve a 2.5-to-1 ratio, achieved entirely by increasing the quantities of crack that trigger mandatory minimums. This ratio could be further reduced or brought to parity in the future, and a deal could be supplemented with funding for research on the addictiveness and deadliness of these substances, as Mr. Grassley has pushed for.”

marijuana-dc211104

Meanwhile, the cannabis industry is lobbying hard for marijuana reform “before midterm elections that could reshape the political landscape on Capitol Hill,” according to a Canadian newspaper:

In April, the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act), which would effectively remove cannabis from the U.S. list of controlled substances and provide sentence relief to people serving marijuana sentence.

The MORE Act’s prospects in the Senate are less certain. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the most powerful Democrat in the upper chamber, has already introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. The CAOA also includes criminal sentence reform, but contains provisions regulating the cannabis industry that are much different than MORE.

What may happen is that the SAFE Banking Act, a more incremental step that does not include sentence reform but one with more bipartisan support in Congress than either MORE or CAOA, may be substituted. “We know right now, if SAFE were to come up, it would be a 65 to 70 vote,” an industry spokesman says. “We know the votes are there for SAFE, so our focus is on getting SAFE over the finish line.”

Good news for the industry, but bad news for marijuana defendants.

The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S.601) has gone nowhere in the Senate since being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in June 2021. But supporters may get what they want from an unexpected quarter.

hammer160509In Shaw v. United States, the Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case where the district court used conduct of which the defendant was acquitted to increase his sentence (although still within the statutory maximum). The Supremes have not yet ruled on the petition for certiorari, but the petition has collected amicus briefs urging its grant from the conservative Cato Institute to the liberal Americans for Prosperity, as well as from Prof. Doug Berman and The National Association of Federal Defenders.

Last week, a Bloomberg Law opinion piece argued for the Court to hear it:

Taking up the issue of acquitted conduct sentencing this next term will give the court another opportunity to tackle a criminal justice issue that unites people from across the spectrum… At least three current justices have questioned or called for an end to this unjust practice… There is reason to hope other members of the court would also agree acquitted conduct sentencing is unconstitutional given their professional backgrounds and experience on the front lines working in the criminal justice system.”

Washington Times, Biden judicial nominee loses Senate confirmation vote (September 13, 2022)

Washington Post, The powder vs. crack cocaine disparity still exists, and it’s still unfair (September 15, 2022)

Chronicle-Journal, As midterms approach, Capitol Hill lawmakers push banking reforms for legal cannabis (September 15, 2022)

Shaw v. United States, Case No 22-118 (petition for cert pending)

Bloomberg, US Supreme Court Should Tackle Acquitted Conduct Sentencing (September 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

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

ACQUITTED CONDUCT AND THE HOPEMONGERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKING OF PREMATURE…

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

News Briefs from Capitol Hill – Update for April 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.

CONGRESSIONAL SHORT TAKES…

House OKs Prohibition on Using Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing: Last week, the House passed H.R. 1621, the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 by an overwhelming 405-12 vote.

Co-sponsor Steve Cohen (D-TN), said, “The right of criminal defendants to be judged by a jury of their peers is a foundational principle of the Constitution. The current practice of allowing federal judges to sentence defendants based on conduct for which they were acquitted by a jury is not right and is not fair.”

A similar measure introduced by Sens Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee last June and has been advanced to the full Senate.

sliceofpie220407The bill actually does very little. If a federal defendant goes to trial and is acquitted on one or more counts, but is convicted on at least one count, the sentencing judge may nevertheless take into account all of the conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in setting a sentence.  All the judge has to do is conclude that the government proved the defendant committed the acquitted acts by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower standard than the standard for conviction, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So the legislation will benefit the portion of the 6% who go to trial who are not acquitted of all charges and who are not convicted of all charges.  That’s a pretty small slice. It will not help people whose sentences are affected by charges that the government dismisses or, even more common, accusations of relevant conduct which are never charged to begin with.

And, no, it will not be retroactive. Still, any nudge of sentencing procedure toward sanity is welcome.

H.R. 1621, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021

Steve Cohen, Congressman Cohen Speaks in Favor of and Votes for His Bill Prohibiting the Consideration of Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing (Mar 28)

Sen Hawley Introduces Bill to Slam Judge Jackson and CP Defendants: Who saw this coming?

kittyporn170420In the wake of his criticism of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for being soft on child pornography defendants, Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO) has week introduced a bill to require a minimum 5-year sentence on people possessing child pornography and to require judges to sentence within the Guidelines for any child pornography offense.

Rep Ken Buck (R-CO) introduced companion legislation in the House.

A Democratic Party opponent to Hawley said of the bill, “We can count on Senator Hawley to find the lowest common denominator to draw attention to himself. The independent ABA’s review board found this line of questioning to be misleading and multiple fact checkers have debunked the allegations regarding sentencing. Choosing this time to introduce this legislation is purely for attention and designed to appeal to conspiracy.”

S.3951, Protect Act of 2022

H.R. 7263, Protect Act of 2022

Washington Times, GOP introduce bill to beef up child porn sentences after Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearing (March 30, 2022)

KYTV, Springfield, Missouri, Missouri U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley introduces bill over sentences for child porn offenders (April 2, 2022)

crack211102FAMM Issues EQUAL Act Analysis: FAMM released an analysis last week urging the Senate to approve the EQUAL Act reporting that if the bill becomes law, it will reduce sentences for people already serving time for crack offenses by an average of just over six years, cutting 46,500 years off sentences. FAMM estimates that 91% of people benefitting from EQUAL Act are black.

FAMM, The EQUAL Act: Why Congress Must #EndTheDisparity Between Federal Crack & Powder Cocaine Sentences (March 31, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

There Ain’t No Easter Bunny… – Update for September 16, 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.

HOW’S THAT 65% BILL DOING?

After answering yet another email about the mythical 65% bill – legislation that purportedly would reduce everyone’s sentence to 65% of what the court imposed – I thought I would lead with this sad news:

There is no Santa Claus. There is no Easter Bunny. And there is no 65% Bill.

easterbunny210916While Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has introduced such a bill in a number of previous sessions of Congress since 2001, there is no such bill in the hopper now. When she did introduce it, the bill never even got a committee hearing. If it did exist, it wouldn’t get one now. A 65% bill would stand a chance of passage approaching zero.

In sum, the so-called 65% bill is like a pink unicorn: fun to imagine, but not real. And neither is the rumor that everyone will get a sentence cut because of COVID.

So what is real? First, a letter sent last week by 25 state attorneys general to House and Senate leadership, urging an expansion of Section 404 of the First Step Act to include people sentenced under 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(C). You recall that in Terry v. United States last June, the Supreme Court held that Section 404 did not qualify pre-2010 crack sentences for sentence reduction. The state attorneys general want legislation to change that.

Second, a lot of criticism of the President over the CARES Act. Writing in the Washington Examiner last week, Matt Schlapp – chairman of the American Conservative Union – argued that Congress should act to ensure that CARES Act home confinees stay at home after the pandemic ends. He wrote, “As a former influential senator and Judiciary Committee chairman, President Joe Biden is at least partially responsible for the explosive growth of our federal prison population. His legislative record is riddled with bills he supported, and sometimes wrote, that filled BOP cells and encouraged states to do the same. Indeed, there are thousands of Americans still serving draconian sentences authorized by some of then-Sen. Biden’s bills.”

chart210624Meanwhile, a piece in the Deseret News made the conservative argument for the EQUAL Act, which would retroactively make crack cocaine sentencing levels equal to those of powder cocaine: The EQUAL Act already passed through the U.S. House Judiciary Committee with a vote of 36-5, garnering support from both sides of the aisle. It faces another battle to pass through the rest of Congress, and Utah’s delegation should be there to vote in support. The debate over crack versus powder cocaine has no basis in science, in rationality, or in ethics. Because of this, many individuals have been needlessly imprisoned for far too long in comparison to the crime committed. Congress should pass the EQUAL Act to ensure these penalties are equalized and fairness is restored to criminal sentencing.”C

So when will Congress get to any criminal justice reform measures? No one knows. Only a few bills have been voted out of committee in the Senate – the COVID-19 Safer Detention Act, the First Step Implementation Act of 2021, and the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act. In the House, the EQUAL Act is the only criminal justice bill voted out of committee. No floor votes have been scheduled for any bills. With infrastructure and the $3.5 trillion spending bills taking center stage in Congress, it is unlikely that criminal justice reform will get any attention until next year.

Letter to Sens Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell (September 2, 2021)

Washington Examiner, Biden promised to address over-incarceration. He’s blowing his opportunity (September 8, 2021)

Deseret News, Conservatives should support sentencing reform for crack cocaine (September 8, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

SIZZLE BUT NO STEAK YET IN WASHINGTON – UPDATE FOR AUGUST 13, 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.

LAST WEEK IN WASHINGTON

oddcouple210219The news website Axios reported last week that Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) – the Senate’s criminal-justice reform “odd couple” – “are working to win Senate passage of a big criminal justice reform package this Congress.”

Axios cited approval of three bills by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the COVID-19 Safer Detention Act, the First Step Implementation Act, and the Prohibiting Use of Acquitted Conduct Act as being “three measures, Grassley told Axios, they ‘hope to package along with potentially other proposals to pass the Senate sometime this Congress’.” Durbin separately told Axios in his own statement that he’s “committed to bringing these bills to the Senate floor this Congress.”

Axios predicts the final package also may include a measure for CARES Act confinees who otherwise may be forced to return to prison, a Republican Senate staffer told Axios, as well as the EQUAL Act. One challenge will be the crime spike, Axios said, which has the potential of sapping support from senators afraid of being branded soft on crime.

I like Axios, which is a pretty even-handed service, albeit more of a news aggregator than a news reporter. (Nothing wrong with news aggregators – LISA is largely one itself). But because it’s an aggregator, I am not sure whether Axios’s report represents something new, or is just a survey of what we already know.

caresbear210104In other developments, a coalition of five civil rights groups last week urged the Dept of Justice to reconsider its position on sending back to prison thousands of federal inmates transferred to home confinement during the pandemic, offering a legal analysis they believe would justify keeping them out from behind bars.

They argued that the Trump-era legal memo that concluded BOP is required by law to revoke home confinement for those transferred during the pandemic as soon as the emergency period is over, contending the Office of Legal Counsel memo is based on a flawed interpretation of the CARES Act.

Update: Yesterday, Senators Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) wrote to President Biden, urging him to act on keeping CARES Act home confinees at home. They suggested, in part, that the Bureau of Prisons could “provide relief for certain individuals through prerelease home confinement, under 18 USC § 3624(c)(2), and the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program, pursuant to 34 USC § 6054l(g). For those who do not qualify for those provisions, BOP can recommend, and DOJ should support, compassionate release pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(l)(A). Compassionate release is authorized whenever extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction, and the once-in-a-century global pandemic that led to these home confinement placements certainly constitutes such an extraordinary and compelling circumstance.”

So far, the President has resisted by inaction such calls to address the looming home confinement crisis.

Axios, Senate plans barrage on crime (August 1, 2021)

The Hill, Civil rights groups offer DOJ legal strategy on keeping inmates home after pandemic (August 4, 2021)

Letter to Dawn E. Johnsen, Acting Asst Attorney General (August 4, 2021)

The Hill, Top Senate Democrats urge Biden to take immediate action on home confinement program (August 12, 2021)

Letter to President Biden from Sens. Durbin and Booker (August 12, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root