For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
April 7 — A landmark study issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission reveals procedural inconsistency in how the 94 federal jurisdictions handle sentence reductions for defendants who substantially cooperate with prosecutors.
While that discrepancy is not inherently indicative of wrongdoing, it does provide guidance to criminal law practitioners as to which method may be more effective in their jurisdictions, a sentencing professor told Bloomberg BNA.
Christine M. Leonard, director of legislative and public affairs for the U.S.S.C., said the study's main goal was to provide greater detail and analysis on the tools the government uses to obtain substantial assistance reductions. The commission wanted to see whether practices were consistent across the country and if not, in what locations they differed, she explained.
Two motions are available for prosecutors to request a sentence reduction—one before sentencing and one after, according to the report on the study. The study tracked the use of post-sentencing motions for the first time and found that some federal jurisdictions use post-sentencing motions instead of pre-sentencing motions, the report said.
Traditionally, prosecutors would enter a motion before sentencing pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the federal guidelines, explained Douglas E. Berman, a law professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and author of the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog. The post-sentencing motion under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35(b) was typically seen as a back-door method to a sentence reduction, he added.
Studying those post-sentencing motions was important because they were previously perceived as a “hidden component” of the federal criminal justice system because the U.S.S.C. did not track their use, Berman said.
“It seems like in a few districts, this isn’t an afterthought—this is operationalized,” Berman said.
However, Congress never expressed a clear preference in which method prosecutors should use, which makes it difficult to measure whether that data is good or bad, he said.
“I'm not sure that's a sign of injustice, but it's a sign of the system,” Berman said. “It's not necessarily something to praise or criticize.”
Still, the data provides more insight into how this large system functions, he added. While Berman said he might have a richer understanding of how many people cooperate and receive benefits for that cooperation at sentencing, it still only provides a limited view.
“That's only one piece of federal sentencing giving us a crisper understanding of the broader mosaic,” he said. “It's hard to assess that one particular puzzle piece to determine the look of the overall puzzle.”
Even if the data is too limited to offer big-picture insight, Berman said it offers practitioners guidance on which method might be more effective in their respective jurisdictions.
“The study provides a framework of reference for the national application of procedures to better inform local practitioners,” she said.
Yet in addition to the practical guidance, Leonard added that an unexpected finding showed that most judges doling out reductions still found themselves sentencing within the guidelines. Most of those defendants receiving sentence reductions were those serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, she said.
Reviewing the data showed that in some circumstances, judges decided the lengths of those mandatory minimums were not appropriate, Leonard said.
“Our commission focuses its work on the federal sentencing guidelines,” she said. “Ultimately, it's up to Congress as to whether these mandatory minimums still make sense.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Jessica DaSilva at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
The full report is available at http://src.bna.com/d3m.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)