« Prof Stephanos Bibas among new slate of notable nominees to the circuit courts by Prez Trump | Main | Judge Jack Weinstein talks through general deterrence and gang activity in federal gun sentencing »

June 7, 2017

Four Senators write to AG Sessions with pointed questions about the Sessions Memo on charging and sentencing

As detailed in this press release from Senator Mike Lee, "Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Rand Paul (R-KY) sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions Wednesday, seeking answers about the Department of Justice’s May 10, 2017 memorandum, directing federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious offense possible when prosecuting defendants."  The three-page letter is available at this link, and it starts this way:

We write concerning the Department of Justice's May 10, 2017 memorandum directing federal prosecutors to "pursue the most serious, readily provable offense." The Department's new policy ignores the growing bipartisan view that federal sentencing laws are in grave need of reform.  In many cases, the new policy will result in counterproductive sentences that do nothing to make the public safer. And it appears to force the hand of the prosecutors closest to each case to seek the highest possible offense rather than enable them to determine an appropriate lesser charge, which can help guard against imposing excessive sentences.

Among the six pointed questions (with sub-questions) that end the letter are these that strike me as especially interesting:

Pursuant to the Department's new policy, prosecutors are allowed to apply for approval to deviate from the general rule that they must pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.  The memo, however, does not explain how the Department will decide whether to grant approval to deviate from the general rule.  What factors will the Department consider in making these decisions? How often do you anticipate that prosecutors will request approval to deviate from the Department's charging policy? How often do you expect such requests will be granted?  Will Main Justice track how frequently attorneys seek departures from the new policy?

Are there any federal criminal offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences that you believe are unfair?  Do you believe that all applications of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) result in fair sentences?  If the answer to either of those questions is "no," why do you believe the Department's new policy allows enough discretion to individual prosecutors to result in fair outcomes in cases implicating these statutes?

 Prior recent related posts: 

June 7, 2017 at 07:06 PM | Permalink

Comments

Trump appointed yet another Yale Law indoctrinated lawyer to head the FBI, instead of a seasoned police official. We will continue to have PC prevail over safety, as it did at the FBI on 9/11. The lawyer profession and its PC were 100% the cause of 9/11.

Posted by: David Behar | Jun 8, 2017 12:25:16 AM

Wray is pals with this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/wray-recommendation-yates/index.html?sr=fbpol060717wray-recommendation-yates0831PMVODtopLink&linkId=38455971

Posted by: David Behar | Jun 8, 2017 12:27:15 AM

The senators questions ask for very specific Nswers that Sessions may be unwilling or unable to answer without doing some research. Both if which hes not going to do.

But I like the questions anyway.

Posted by: MidWestGuy | Jun 9, 2017 12:00:31 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