« Round-up some more potent posts from Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform | Main | Will any Justices express any concerns about drug secrecy after third ugly execution? »

August 3, 2014

Significant AG Holder comments asserting severe rigid sentences are not needed to induce cooperation

Attorney General Eric Holder's significant speech at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' Annual Meeting made headlines mostly due to his expression of concern about the use of risk assessment instruments in initial sentencing determinations (as previously discussed here).  I will discuss AG Holder's nuanced comments on this front in some future posts.  

Before discussing the use of risk assessment instruments in initial sentencing determinations, I first want to recommend that everyone read all of AG Holder's NACDL speech, which is available here, because it includes a number of notable passages addressing a number of notable sentencing topics.  Of particular note, these paragraphs seek to debunk the oft-heard statements that reform of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions could prevent prosecutors from securing needed cooperation from defendants:

[T]he Smart on Crime initiative has led us to revise the Justice Department’s charging policies with regard to mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal, drug-related crimes — so that sentences will be determined based on the facts, the law, and the conduct at issue in each individual case.  This means that the toughest penalties will now be reserved for the most serious criminals.  Over the last few months — with the Department’s urging — the U.S. Sentencing Commission has taken additional steps to codify this approach, amending federal sentencing guidelines for low-level drug trafficking crimes to reduce the average sentence by nearly 18 percent.  Going forward, these new guidelines will impact almost 70 percent of people who are convicted of these offenses. And last month, the Commission voted to allow judges to apply these revised guidelines retroactively in cases where reductions are warranted.

Now, some have suggested that these modest changes might somehow undermine the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to induce cooperation from defendants in federal drug cases.  But the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Like anyone who served as a prosecutor in the days before sentencing guidelines existed and mandatory minimums took effect, I know from experience that defendant cooperation depends on the certainty of swift and fair punishment, not on the disproportionate length of a mandatory minimum sentence.  As veteran prosecutors and defense attorneys surely recall — and as our U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, John Vaudreuil, has often reminded his colleagues — sentencing guidelines essentially systematized the kinds of negotiations that routinely took place in cases where defendants cooperated with the government in exchange for reduced sentences.  With or without the threat of a mandatory minimum, it remains in the interest of these defendants to cooperate.  It remains in the mutual interest of defense attorneys and prosecutors to engage in these discussions. And any suggestion that defendant cooperation is somehow dependent on mandatory minimums is plainly inconsistent with the facts and with history.

Far from impeding the work of federal prosecutors, these sentencing reforms that I have mandated represent the ultimate expression of confidence in their judgment and discretion.  That’s why I’ve called on Congress to expand upon and further institutionalize the changes we’ve put in place — so we can better promote public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation while saving billions of dollars and reducing our overreliance on incarceration.

August 3, 2014 at 09:44 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201a73dfac642970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Significant AG Holder comments asserting severe rigid sentences are not needed to induce cooperation:

Comments

I like the sounds of Ag Holder, reserved for the most serious offenders.

But, but, because this was the reason why the MM were created and they dished them out to all garden variety drug cases like it was candy. We must press on and remove the teeth from the beast before someone like Bill Otis, sells the kind that likes to hear themselves talk with no facts and put up a fight.

Dismantle the MM and dont stop with the guidelines. Chop them down.

Posted by: Midwest Guy | Aug 3, 2014 9:57:54 PM

Like the say talk is cheap without action, OBAMA talks alot , less action, sure he has a right to blame a GOP congress, but he should have pointed it out on month 1 with the GOP's no.1 goal and not play mr. nice guy, hopefully the next president doesn't make that mistake, sadly.

Posted by: Alex | Aug 9, 2014 7:01:10 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB