Monday, November 23, 2020

Reviewing Criminal Justice Unity Task Force Recommendations: a new series to welcome a new President

Since the 2020 federal election results became clear a few weeks ago, I have already blogged a bit (here and here) about some of the the notable criminal justice reform recommendations [available here pp. 56-62] from the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force (first discussed here).  With Prez-elect Biden now starting to announce his planned cabinet appointments, I have decided it is now time to start a new series of posts that spotlight and amplify some  recommendations from the Criminal Justice Unity Task Force that ought to get sentencing fans especially excited. 

I have never been quite sure if Prez-elect Joe Biden views the recommendations that emerged from the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force as part of his official avowed agenda.  But I am quite sure that I am going to be eager to persistently judge the work of the Biden Adminstraton against the backdrop of what the Criminal Justice Unity Task Force (CJUTF) recommended.  And because soooooo much is recommended by the CJUTF, everyone should be prepared for a lot of coming posts in this series.

With that set up, let me start this series by spotlighting arguably the most exciting and challenging of all the CJUTF recommendations:

Sentence Length and Early Release: Task the U.S. Sentencing Commission with conducting a comprehensive review of existing sentencing guidelines and statutory sentencing ranges, with the goal of generating legislative recommendations, promulgating new guidelines, and issuing formal guidance to reduce unreasonably long sentences and promote rehabilitation.  The Commission should make recommendations regarding early release options, including expanding good time credits, reinstating federal parole, and creating a “second look” mechanism permitting federal judges to reevaluate sentences after a certain amount of time served.  Any such options should use a systematic, evidence-based approach that reduces risks to public safety, prevents racially disparate implementation, reduces the total number of people under federal custody and supervision, and limits the duration and conditions of supervision.

This recommendation is so exciting and challenging because it essentialy calls for a top-to-bottom "comprehensive" review of the federal sentencing system.  It is also exciting and challenging because it presupposes a functioning and functional US Sentencing Commission, which has not existed for the better part of two years because of USSC vacancies. 

I have flagged this issue in this first post in this series not only because it is arguably the most far-reaching of the CJUTF recommendations, but also because the incoming Biden Administration needs to be working now on appointments to the US Sentencing Commission if it really wants to hit the ground running.  Sadly, there is a long history of US Sentencing Commission not getting the attention it deserves and that it critically needs if and whenever federal policymakers are seriously committed to federal sentencing reform.  At a time when there is finally sustained bipartisan commitment to continued federal sentencing reforms, the new President and his team should be trying to get all the key players on the field ASAP.  All the other proposed CJUTF sentencing reforms that I will discuss in coming posts can and should be more effectively advanced if and when the Biden Administration does this critical initital appointing work.  

Prior related posts:

November 23, 2020 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Latest Gallup poll indicates "U.S. Support for Death Penalty Holds Above Majority Level"

Yf68dytyzk6h07t16w_kyqThe quoted portion of the title of this post is the headline of this Gallup report from a few days ago,  Here are excerpts from the report:

Americans' support for the death penalty continues to be lower than at any point in nearly five decades.  For a fourth consecutive year, fewer than six in 10 Americans (55%) are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers.  Death penalty support has not been lower since 1972, when 50% were in favor.

Gallup has asked Americans whether they are "in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder" since 1936, when 58% said they were. In all but one survey -- in 1966 -- more Americans have been in favor than opposed.  The 1960s and early 1970s brought many legal challenges to the death penalty, culminating in a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state death penalty statutes.  After the high court upheld revised state death penalty laws in 1976, support for capital punishment grew, peaking at 80% in 1994, a time of heightened public concern about crime.

This year's results are based on a Sept. 30-Oct. 15 survey.  Gallup occasionally asks another question to gauge death penalty support, with respondents indicating whether they believe the better punishment for murder is the death penalty or life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.  In the most recent update, from 2019, Americans favored life imprisonment over the death penalty by 60% to 36%, a dramatic shift from prior years.

Many Americans are thus conflicted on the death penalty.  The two Gallup trend questions indicate that about one in five Americans express theoretical support for use of the death penalty but believe life imprisonment is a better way to punish convicted murderers....

Both Democrats and independents show declines in their support for the death penalty, including similar drops (eight and seven percentage points, respectively) since 2016.  Between the 2000-2010 and 2011-2016 time periods, Democratic support dropped more (eight points) than independent support did (three points).  Now, 39% of Democrats and 54% of independents are in favor of the death penalty.  Meanwhile, Republicans' support for the death penalty has held steady, with 79% currently supporting it, unchanged since 2016 and barely lower than the 80% registered between 2000 and 2010....

Changes in the U.S. population appear to be a factor in declining death penalty support in recent years. Groups that are constituting a greater share of the U.S. adult population over time -- including millennials and Generation Z, non-White adults and college graduates -- all show below-average support for the death penalty.

Over the past four years, an average of 45% of those in Generation Z (those born after 1996) have favored the death penalty, as have 51% of millennials (those born between 1980 and 1996).  That compares with 57% of those in Generation X, 59% of baby boomers and 62% of those born before 1946.

Forty-six percent of non-White Americans, versus 61% of Non-Hispanic White Americans, support the death penalty. Among college graduates, 46% favor the death penalty, compared with 60% of those without a college degree.

November 23, 2020 in Death Penalty Reforms, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Some Modest Proposals for a Progressive Prosecutor"

the title of this post is the title of this new piece now available via SSRN authored by Steven Zeidman. Here is its abstract:

The progressive prosecutor movement has spawned a number of races for District Attorney where candidates fight to claim the mantle of most progressive potential prosecutor. However, the promises made by self-described forward thinking, if not exactly radical, prosecutor candidates, as well as those made by newly elected District Attorneys, are at best the kind of reformist reforms criticized by many as having little impact on entrenched systems of oppression and as ultimately expanding their reach.

It is incumbent on those looking for fundamental change in prosecutorial practices to try and assess whether any candidates are willing to take bolder steps than simply promising to prosecute more fairly and compassionately.  Instead, the inquiry must be whether the candidate is willing to give up any aspects of the awesome power and the vast resources bestowed upon the office, particularly when it comes to the trial process.

November 23, 2020 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Highlighting the need for second-chance sentencing reforms

This new Law360 piece, headlined "2nd Look Law Needed To Fix Broken Criminal Justice System," gives attention to a recent ABA panel discussing second-look sentencing reforms.  Here are excerpts:

To address the mass incarceration that has resulted from older policing practices, which has disproportionately impacted Black men, federal and local governments should adopt so-called second look laws that allow incarcerated individuals to petition judges to reevaluate their sentences after a certain period of time, experts said Thursday at the American Bar Association's annual fall criminal justice conference.

Mary Price, general counsel at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, or FAMM, a nonprofit advocacy organization seeking to end mandatory sentencing, said that our criminal justice system has been addicted to putting people in prison to manage problems leading to mass incarceration, and this needs to stop.  "I don't think we are going to be able to achieve justice in the system until we not only reform the police and practices, but we also ensure that the legacy of older policing — in the form of people serving sentences that are way out of proportion with their conduct, and also people who are thrown away because the nature of the offense or the addiction — is also addressed," Price said.

Last year, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., along with Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., introduced the Second Look Act of 2019 that proposes allowing any incarcerated individual who has served at least 10 years to request that their sentence be reevaluated to determine if they are eligible for early release or a sentence reduction, but the bill hasn't passed in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives yet.

David Singleton, the executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, said during a panel titled Second Look & Incarceration with Price at the ABA conference that a challenge to getting a federal second look law passed is that lawmakers want carveouts that would exempt certain crimes, such as murder or sex offenses, from the law. Singleton said carveouts defeat the purpose of the law because they leave people behind. "We have to move away from these carveouts," Singleton said.  "If we accept carveouts, the advocates of change, we are throwing people under the bus."...

Booker reinforced the panelists' words during his keynote speech at the conference on Friday, saying that criminal justice reform needs to be throughout the country's entire justice system.  "We must commit ourselves to continuing the work of reforming a savagely broken system and that means everything — our policing to what happens with sentencing to what happens inside our prisons to what happens upon release," Booker said.

November 23, 2020 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Notable review of New York's recent parole realities

This Times Union has this notable new article on New York's notable parole realities under the full headline "A 'broken' parole process: Data shows widened racial bias: Four years after racial disparities exposed, a state report has yet to be released." Here is how the piece gets started:

A white inmate in a New York prison is significantly more likely on average to be released on parole than a Black or Hispanic person — and that gap has widened in 2020, according to a Times Union analysis of the nearly 19,000 parole board decisions over the last two years.

The disparities continue despite steps by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to make the parole board more diverse.  That initiative began about four years ago, after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ordered an investigation by the inspector general's office into revelations in a New York Times series that exposed the racial imbalances in parole and prison disciplinary proceedings.  The investigation has languished and no public report has been released.

The inspector general’s office, in an email response to questions, asserted without providing any data that racial disparities have gone down in recent years.  They offered a list of policy changes that have been made, including changes to sentencing guidelines, appeals processes and implicit bias training.

DOCCS, which oversees New York’s 53 state prisons, said the Times Union's analysis was too limited.  Spokesman Thomas Mailey wrote that the analysis was inadequate because detailed factors like disciplinary and program records, positions of the district attorney, sentencing courts and victim impact statements were not considered.

But officials contacted for this story did not provide any evidence countering the Times Union's core findings.  And those findings were averages based on each parole initial hearing and reappearance over the last two years, showing that the racial disparities were prevalent in the outcomes.

In discretionary parole hearings from October 2018 through October 2020, where commissioners from the Board of Parole decided whether incarcerated people should be released from prison, the Times Union’s analysis showed that 41 percent of white people were granted parole, compared to 34 percent of Blacks and 33 percent of Hispanics.  These numbers include initial parole appearances once people meet their minimum sentences, as well as subsequently scheduled reappearances, which are usually every two years.  It excludes more specialized categories such as medical hearings or those relating to deportations.

If Black and Hispanic people were paroled at the same rates as whites over the last two years alone, there would be 675 fewer people behind bars.

November 22, 2020 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Therapeutic Discipline: Drug Courts, Foucault, and the Power of the Normalizing Gaze"

The titl of this post is the title of this notable new article available via SSRN and authored by Michael Sousa. Here is its abstract:

Drug treatment courts represent a paradigm shift in the American criminal justice system.  By focusing on providing drug treatment services to low-level offenders with severe use disorders rather than sentencing them to a term of incarceration, drug courts represent a return to a more rehabilitative model for dealing with individuals ensnared by the criminal justice system and away from the retributive model that dictated punishment in the latter half of the twentieth century.  The existing scholarship exploring how drug treatment courts function has been largely atheoretical, and past attempts to harmonize theory to drug treatment courts fail to demonstrate how these institutions normalize offenders prior to reintegration into society.  Relying on Michel Foucault’s notion of governmentality together with his concepts of “technologies of power” and “technologies of the self,” I develop the analytical framework of “therapeutic discipline” as a more robust lens through which to understand the operation of drug treatment courts nationwide.  My contribution of “therapeutic discipline” to the existing literature is bolstered by representative examples of qualitative data taken from a long-term, ethnographic study of one adult drug treatment court.

November 22, 2020 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 21, 2020

"What the data says (and doesn’t say) about crime in the United States"

The title of this post is the title of this effective short FactTank report about US crime rates authored byJohn Gramlich for the Pew Research Center. I recommend the full piece, which includes lost of links, and here are some exerpts:

As Trump’s presidency draws to a close, here is a look at what we know — and don’t know — about crime in the U.S., based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the federal government and other sources...

Property crime in the U.S. is much more common than violent crime.  In 2019, the FBI reported a total of 2,109.9 property crimes per 100,000 people, compared with 379.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people.  By far the most common form of property crime in 2019 was larceny/theft, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. Among violent crimes, aggravated assault was the most common offense, followed by robbery, rape, and murder/non-negligent manslaughter....

Both the FBI and BJS data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation....

Americans tend to believe crime is up, even when the data shows it is down.  In 20 of 24 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the generally downward trend in national violent and property crime rates during most of that period....  This year, the gap between the share of Americans who say crime is up nationally and the share who say it is up locally (78% vs. 38%) is the widest Gallup has ever recorded....

There are big differences in violent and property crime rates from state to state and city to city.  In 2019, there were more than 800 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska and New Mexico, compared with fewer than 200 per 100,000 people in Maine and New Hampshire, according to the FBI.

Even in similarly sized cities within the same state, crime rates can vary widely. Oakland and Long Beach, California, had comparable populations in 2019 (434,036 vs. 467,974), but Oakland’s violent crime rate was more than double the rate in Long Beach. The FBI notes that various factors might influence an area’s crime rate, including its population density and economic conditions....

Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. are not reported to police, and most of the crimes that are reported are not solved.

Fewer than half of crimes in the U.S. are reported, and fewer than half of reported crimes are solved.  In its annual survey, BJS asks crime victims whether they reported their crime to police or not.  In 2019, only 40.9% of violent crimes and 32.5% of household property crimes were reported to authorities.  BJS notes that there are a variety of reasons why crime might not be reported, including fear of reprisal or “getting the offender in trouble,” a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help,” or a belief that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

Most of the crimes that are reported to police, meanwhile, are not solved, at least based on an FBI measure known as the clearance rate.  That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution, or due to “exceptional” circumstances such as the death of a suspect or a victim’s refusal to cooperate with a prosecution.  In 2019, police nationwide cleared 45.5% of violent crimes that were reported to them and 17.2% of the property crimes that came to their attention.

Both the percentage of crimes that are reported to police and the percentage that are solved have remained relatively stable for decades.... The most frequently solved violent crime tends to be homicide.  Police cleared around six-in-ten murders and non-negligent manslaughters (61.4%) last year.  The clearance rate was lower for aggravated assault (52.3%), rape (32.9%) and robbery (30.5%). When it comes to property crime, law enforcement agencies cleared 18.4% of larcenies/thefts, 14.1% of burglaries and 13.8% of motor vehicle thefts.

November 21, 2020 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Terrific coverage at CCRC as "Marijuana expungement accelerates across the country"

Long-time readers here and at my other blog know I have long been interested in how marijuana reform can advance criminal justice reform.  My 2018 article, "Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices," called for much greater efforts to ensure marijuana reforms advance criminal record expungement efforts.  Happily, my 2018 article now already feels a bit dated because there has recently been a much greater emphasis on record relief in many marijuana reforms proposed and passed over the last couple of years. 

These recent realities have been effectively documented at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.  CCRC Deputy Director David Schlussel first highlighted these developments in March 2020, via this posting and resource under the title "Legalizing marijuana and expunging records across the country."  That detailed posting began this way:  "As the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana has now reached a majority of the states, the expungement of criminal records has finally attained a prominent role in the marijuana reform agenda."  Wonderfully, this new follow-up posting provides the lastest detailed post-election accounting and gets started this way:

In November’s election, four more states legalized marijuana at the ballot box: Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota. The measures in Arizona and Montana included provisions for expunging the record of convictions for certain marijuana arrests or convictions.  During this year’s presidential campaign, President-elect Joseph R. Biden called for decriminalizing marijuana use and automatically expunging all marijuana use convictions.

As legalization continues to advance, the expungement of criminal records has finally attained a prominent role in marijuana reform, a development we documented in March.  Laws to facilitate marijuana expungement and other forms of record relief, such as sealing and set-aside, have now been enacted in 23 states and D.C.

Until very recently, most such laws extended to very minor offenses involving small amounts of marijuana and required individuals to file petitions in court to obtain relief.  Now, a growing number of states have authorized marijuana record relief that covers more offenses and either does away with petition requirements or streamlines procedures.

With these developments, we have again updated our chart providing a 50-state snapshot of:

(1) laws legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana;

(2) laws that specifically provide relief for past marijuana arrests and convictions, including but not limited to conduct that has been legalized or decriminalized; and

(3) pardon programs specific to marijuana offenses.

November 21, 2020 in Collateral consequences, Marijuana Legalization in the States, Pot Prohibition Issues, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 20, 2020

US Department of Justice sets three more execution dates

In this July post I wondered aloud "How many federal death row prisoners does Attorney General William Barr want to see executed in 2020?".  My main point in that post was that, after the completion of an initial three federal executions that month thanks to SCOTUS lifting lower court stays, it seemed that AG Barr would likely be able to have completed as many executions he decided to set.  For anyone who might have thought AG Barr would be content with ten executions in 2020 (eight already completed and two more planned), this new DOJ press reveals details he is not done.  This release is titled  "Executions Scheduled for Inmates Convicted of Brutal Murders Many Years Ago," and here are the essentials:

Attorney General William P. Barr today directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to schedule the executions of three federal-death row inmates sentenced to death for staggeringly brutal murders, including the murder of a child and, with respect to two inmates, the murder of multiple victims.

  • Alfred Bourgeois abused, tortured, and beat to death his young daughter....  Bourgeois is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Dec. 11, 2020, at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute, Indiana.
  • Cory Johnson murdered seven people — Peyton Johnson, Louis Johnson, Bobby Long, Dorothy Armstrong, Anthony Carter, Linwood Chiles, and Curtis Thorne — in furtherance of his drug-trafficking activities....  Johnson is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Jan. 14, 2021, at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute, Indiana.
  • Dustin John Higgs kidnapped and murdered three women — Tamika Black, 19; Tanji Jackson, 21; and Mishann Chinn, 23....  Higgs is scheduled to be executed on Jan. 15, 2021.

November 20, 2020 in Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (4)

NACDL continuing great work spotlighting the ugly trial penalty now through compelling clemency petitions

This news release, titled "NACDL Trial Penalty Clemency Project Submits Second Set of Petitions to White House," reports effectively on work by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to shine light on, and seek needed remedies for, criminal defendants unfairly subject to the "trial penalty."  Here are some details on NACDL's latest efforts and prior work:

As of this week, NACDL’s Trial Penalty Clemency Project submitted four more federal clemency petitions to the Office of the Pardon Attorney and the White House, adding to the first set of six petitions submitted on October 2, 2020.  Of the four petitions, three concern individuals serving life or lengthy sentences for non-violent drug charges, and one concerns an individual serving over 35 years for a non-violent white-collar conviction.

As of late, increased attention to the criminal legal system has led to public outrage and calls to reform myriad facets of the American legal system.  The trial penalty, though, which refers to coercive prosecutorial practices that induce accused persons to waive fundamental rights under threat of a vastly increased sentence when fundamental rights are asserted, persists in undermining the American criminal legal system.  The most obvious examples of its impact are seen in those who assert their rights and receive a geometrically enhanced sentence.  Though reform is badly needed to end the trial penalty, the only immediate remedy for those individuals living this injustice is executive clemency.  NACDL’s Trial Penalty Clemency Project aims to assist those individuals by pairing applicants with volunteer attorneys who will assist them in preparing a clemency petition.

“The trial penalty makes a mockery of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to trial and is a large and ever-growing cancer on the American criminal legal system,” said NACDL President Chris Adams.  “Every time a defendant opts to hold the government to its burden and go to trial, and receives a substantially more draconian sentence than was previously offered in a plea deal, the American legal system moves further away from justice.  NACDL’s Trial Penalty Clemency Project is a vital step in beginning to remedy this great injustice.”

Thus far, through affiliates, members, and the assistance of organizations in this space like the CAN-DO Foundation, the Last Prisoner Project, and Life For Pot, the Project has identified, reviewed, and assigned more than 20 cases with attorneys.  The attorneys are crafting petitions or supplements to existing petitions focusing on the impact of the trial penalty. In addition to filing the petitions with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, the Project brought the four cases described below, in addition to six previous cases, to the attention of the White House panel on clemency.  NACDL’s Trial Penalty Clemency Project is a component of NACDL’s Return to Freedom Project...

In 2018, NACDL released a groundbreaking report – The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How to Save It. Information and a PDF of NACDL’s 2018 Trial Penalty report, as well as video of the entire 90-minute launch event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, and other trial penalty-related videos and materials are available at www.nacdl.org/trialpenaltyreport.

In 2019, The Federal Sentencing Reporter, published by University of California Press, released a double issue covering April and June 2019, edited by NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer and NACDL President-Elect Martín Antonio Sabelli, entitled "The Tyranny of the Trial Penalty: The Consensus that Coercive Plea Practices Must End."

And in 2020, NACDL and FAMM released a documentary on the trial penalty, The Vanishing Trial. The trailer for that film is available here.

November 20, 2020 in Clemency and Pardons, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

SCOTUS grants cert on two new Fourth Amendment cases

The US Supreme Court released this brief order list this afternoon granting certiorari in these two new cases with these questions presented:

19-1414 UNITED STATES V. COOLEY, JOSHUA J.

Cert petition question presented: "Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law."

20-157 CANIGLIA, EDWARD A. V. STROM, ROBERT F., ET AL.

Cert petition question presented: "Whether the 'community caretaking' exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home."

November 20, 2020 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Is Sally Yates on track to be the next US Attorney General?

E204c9e0-0c25-11eb-a040-3d8028d863aa_1200_630The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new Reuters piece headlined "Biden's possible attorney general pick has moderate track record: progressive critics."  Here are excerpts:

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to end the federal death penalty and eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, but some progressives say a potential pick for attorney general to carry out those reforms may not be the one to enact bold changes.

Sally Yates, 60, is a leading candidate for the job, according to sources.  The Atlanta native is perhaps best known for being fired from her position as acting attorney general by Republican President Donald Trump in his first month in office when she refused to enforce his first attempt at banning travelers from Muslim-majority nations.

Her history at the Department of Justice (DOJ) — where Democratic President Barack Obama appointed her as deputy attorney general in 2015, and before that as Atlanta’s top federal prosecutor for about five years — make the adviser to the Biden transition team a safe pick for a role subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate, which may still be under Republican control next year.

Asked for comment, a Yates spokeswoman provided a lengthy list of opinion articles, testimony and other records she said demonstrate Yates’ strong commitment to criminal justice reform.  A Biden transition team spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Yates has expressed a measured approach on some criminal justice reforms, including previously voicing some support for the mandatory minimum sentences Biden wants to end — a position some progressives worry may not go far enough at a time of reckoning for the criminal justice system.  “She has done courageous things, but she is a career prosecutor,” said Rachel Barkow, a New York University law professor who previously served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets federal sentencing guidelines.  “The question will be, if Sally Yates comes in a second time, does she do a better job reading the moment or is she still coming with that DOJ insider lens?”...

Yates, during her 2015 confirmation hearing for deputy attorney general, called mandatory minimum sentences “an important tool for prosecutors,” which could nevertheless be used more judiciously due to the “fiscal reality” facing U.S. prisons.  While she was U.S. attorney in Atlanta, her office also sought the death penalty in some cases, and she testified on the Justice Department’s behalf to urge the U.S. Sentencing Commission to narrowly limit who could qualify to apply retroactively for a drug sentence reduction.

She was also involved in a controversy surrounding a 2014 clemency project, after Pardon Attorney Deborah Leff resigned in protest due to a backlog of 1,000 recommendations sitting in Yates’ office, 100 of which were urging clemency be granted.  In her January 2016 resignation letter, Leff said Yates had blocked her access to the White House, including on cases where Yates had reversed Leff’s clemency determinations.  Yates’ defenders say she was passionate about clemency, and personally reviewed every petition herself.

Some former colleagues say Yates deserves credit for important work that began during the Obama administration, much of which has since largely been undone during Trump’s term.  Yates spearheaded efforts to scale back the federal government’s use of private prisons, revamped the Bureau of Prisons’ education program to better prepare inmates for release and urged limits on solitary confinement.  She also persuaded Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder to expand on his new policy scaling back the use of mandatory minimums and later publicly rebuked Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, after he reversed these policies in 2017.

“Somebody like Sally is very attuned to what has been happening in the country after George Floyd’s murder,” said Vanita Gupta, who headed the DOJ’s civil rights division during Yates’ tenure and now heads the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human rights.  “She is very personally committed to civil rights and criminal justice reform, and I would fully expect that commitment would actually only deepen.”

I sense that Yates' long history as a federal prosecutor and her moderate approach to many reform issues leads some progressives to be rooting against her for the Attorney General position in a Biden Administration.  But I am inclined to view Yates' past criminal justice record somewhat like I view VP-elect Harris' record: I sense they have always been highly attuned to, and quite effective within, the felt legal and political needs of the time, which would suggest at least some ability to step up to the needs of our current criminal-justice-reform-focused times.

I am eager to note here that Sally Yates has recently been actively involved in the Council of Criminal Justice, serving as Co-Chair of the CCJ Board of Trustees and as a member of its federal priorities task force.  As highlighted in this post from May, I was especially impressed with the agenda for reform that the CCJ federal priorities task force produced.   This impressive report, titled "Next Steps: An Agenda for Federal Action on Safety and Justice," included 15 thoughtful recommendations, and I would be thrilled to have a new Attorney General committed to making these particular proposals a reality ASAP:

If the next Attorney General would be able to get even half of these priorities completed in the coming years, that would be quite a set of accomplishments.

November 20, 2020 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

After SCOTUS lifts stay by 6-3 vote, federal government completes it eighth execution of 2020

As reported here via SCOTUSblog, the "Supreme Court on Thursday night allowed the government to proceed with the execution of Orlando Hall, who became the eighth federal inmate to be put to death since the Trump administration resumed federal executions in July."  Here is more:

Hall was sentenced to death for his role in the kidnapping, rape and murder of 16-year-old Lisa René in 1994.  In a one-sentence order, the Supreme Court lifted a district judge’s last-minute injunction that had temporarily blocked Hall’s execution.  Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented and would have left the injunction in place.

The court also rejected three separate emergency requests filed over the past two days in which Hall asked the justices to postpone his execution.  There were no noted dissents to the three brief orders rejecting those requests.  Shortly after the court’s orders, Hall was put to death at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.  He died at 11:47 p.m., according to local news reports.

Hall’s case reached the Supreme Court after a flurry of litigation in the lower courts over the execution, which the government had scheduled for Thursday at 6 p.m.  On Thursday afternoon, Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction blocking the execution.  The injunction was based on an earlier finding from Chutkan that the government’s method of execution violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the government uses a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital without obtaining a prescription for that drug.

The government immediately appealed Chutkan’s injunction.  The government argued that the prescription requirement in the FDCA does not apply to lethal-injection drugs.  It also argued that Hall was not entitled to an injunction based solely on the lack of a prescription.

The Supreme Court sided with the government, issuing an order just before 11 p.m. that lifted Chutkan’s injunction. The majority did not explain its reasoning, and none of the three justices who noted their dissent wrote an opinion explaining why.  At the same time, the court denied Hall’s three emergency applications, each of which presented separate legal arguments for a postponement of his execution....

Hall’s case was the first case involving a pending execution in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett participated since she joined the bench in October.  Barrett, a devout Catholic, co-wrote a 1998 article on the moral and legal dilemma that Catholic judges face in capital cases due to the church’s opposition to capital punishment.  That article raised questions in her confirmation hearings about possible recusals from such cases.  Barrett cited her full participation in capital cases as a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

A few prior recent related posts:

November 20, 2020 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thursday, November 19, 2020

"How Governors Can Use Categorical Clemency as a Corrective Tool: Lessons from the States"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new report from the Urban Institue.  Here is its executive summary:

Governors in most states have executive clemency authority that allows them to change the terms of someone’s criminal justice system involvement, including by issuing pardons or by granting commutations to adjust the sentences of people in prison.  Though many clemency deliberations are independent case-by-case assessments, in some cases, governors can also extend clemency eligibility categorically to groups of people in prison to mitigate structural issues or accomplish larger reform goals.  In this report, we provide a high-level overview of state executive categorical clemency and offer examples of how state governors have used this strategy as a corrective tool to address problems in the criminal justice system.

November 19, 2020 in Clemency and Pardons, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Further reflections on reform after "war on drugs" loses big in 2020 election

Rightly so, folks are still chatting about the meaning and impact of the election results ushering significant drug reforms.  Here are some of many pieces covering this interesting ground:

November 19, 2020 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Drug Offense Sentencing, Marijuana Legalization in the States | Permalink | Comments (0)

"'Some Mother's Child Has Gone Astray': Neuroscientific Approaches to a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model of Juvenile Sentencing"

the title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Michael Perlin and Alison Lynch now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

There is a robust body of evidence that tells us that the juvenile brain is not fully developed by age 18, and this evidence should and does raise important questions about the sentencing of juveniles in criminal cases.  This evidence, though, must be considered in the context of public opinion (about certain juvenile crimes that have been subject to saturation publicity) in the context of judges’ decisionmaking (where such judges do not want to be perceived as “soft on crime”).  The conflict between what we now know and what (false) “ordinary common sense” demands (in the way of enhanced punishments) flies squarely in the face of therapeutic jurisprudence precepts.  If the legal process is to seek to maximize psychological well-being and if it is to coincide with an “ethic of care,” then, it is necessary for those involved in the criminal justice system to speak publicly about this topic, and to “call out” those — be they elected politicians, editorial writers and commentators in the conservative media, or judges — who urge retributive and punitive sentences for adolescents and children.

In this paper, we will first give a brief overview about the current neuroscientific findings about juvenile brain development in the context of criminal behavior, and then discuss the current sentencing standards and regulations that are in place.  Then, we will discuss the impact of therapeutic jurisprudence as a framework for advocating for juvenile clients, in order to maximize and preserve their psychological well-being and to mitigate trauma.  Finally, we will offer recommendations for how experts can work with attorneys who are presenting sentencing arguments, in order to make the most comprehensive, scientifically persuasive case for leniency in juvenile sentencing.

November 19, 2020 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new work from John Donohue and Steven Levitt published in the American Law and Economics Review.  Here is the abstract:

Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s.  That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far.  Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” 

Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests.  We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion — a decline of 1% per year.  From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%.  Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

November 18, 2020 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

UC Law Review Online publishes symposium on "COVID-19 and Criminal Justice"

I was intribued to see this new University of Chicago Law Review Online symposium exploring the COVID pandemic's impact criminal justice.  Here are all the great-looking pieces:

Valena E. Beety & Brandon L. Garrett, COVID-19 and Criminal Justice (series introduction)

Sharon Dolovich, Mass Incarceration, Meet COVID-19

Maybell Romero, Law Enforcement as Disease Vector

Valena E. Beety, Pre-Trial Dismissal in the Interest of Justice: A Response to COVID-19 and Protest Arrests

Deniz Ariturk, William E. Crozier & Brandon L. Garrett, Virtual Criminal Courts

Pamela R. Metzger & Gregory J. Guggenmos, COVID-19 and the Ruralization of U.S. Criminal Court Systems

Barry Friedman & Robin Tholin, Policing the Pandemic

Jennifer D. Oliva, Policing Opioid Use Disorder in a Pandemic

November 18, 2020 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Recommended reading | Permalink | Comments (0)

Pyrrhic victory for federal death row inmates in DC Circuit lethal injection litigation

As reported in this Courthouse Legal News piece, headlined "Federal Executions on Track but DC Circuit Flags Legal Errors," two federal defendants scheduled to be executed in coming days and weeks got some cold comfort from the DC Circuit today:

Though it declined to block two federal executions, the first just over 24 hours away, the D.C. Circuit was critical Wednesday that seven lethal injections have been carried out in the last few months without medical prescriptions.

This year alone, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has carried out more federal executions than the combined total of his predecessors from the last 57 years. That record has sat undisturbed so far against a litany of challenges to the new lethal-injection protocol unveiled last year by Attorney General William Barr after a 17-year hiatus on the death penalty at the federal level.

Inmates suffered their latest defeat Wednesday morning when the D.C. Circuit declined to stay the executions of Orlando Hall set for Thursday and Brandon Bernard on Dec. 10.

In a rare rebuke from the appeals court as to the government’s death-penalty practices, however, the court revived the inmates’ claims that the government must obtain a prescription before using the drug pentobarbital to kill prisoners....

[In] a September ruling ... U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan found that the Trump administration violated the law by carrying out death sentences with unprescribed pentobarbital, but that Supreme Court decisions foreclosed her from blocking the upcoming executions.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for the first federal execution to proceed this year, overturning a temporary ban that Chutkan had ordered. In her latest ruling, Chutkan concluded that “most of the evidence” brought by attorneys to show flash pulmonary edema grips an inmate while they are still awake was already reviewed by the justices and did not reach the high bar to grant injunctive relief.

But the 2-1 appeals panel ruled Wednesday that Chutkan “should have ordered the 2019 protocol to be set aside to the extent that it permits the use of unprescribed pentobarbital in a manner that violates the FDCA.” Though the court revived the inmates’ Eighth Amendment challenge, it affirmed “denial of a permanent injunction to remedy the FDCA violation.”

Jonathan S. Meltzer, an attorney for Hall, said they would ask the Supreme Court this afternoon to issue a stay. The Justice Department did not respond to whether it plans to bring its own challenge to the Wednesday ruling. Hall has requested to go to the execution chamber at 6 p.m. for his scheduled death on Thursday. He was convicted for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in 1994.

Bernard, set to be executed next month, was sentenced to death for the killing of two youth ministers at Food Hood. One of his five co-defendants, Christopher Vialva, was the most recent federal prisoner to die by lethal injection, executed by the Trump administration in September.

Lisa Montgomery, bringing a separate lawsuit backed by the ACLU, is scheduled to die on Dec. 8 — two days before Bernard — and would be the first woman executed by the U.S. government since 1953.

The full split panel ruling from the D.C. Circuit is available at this link.

November 18, 2020 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Seventh Circuit panel reverses below-guideline 16-year prison sentence as substantively unreasonable in terrorism case

Regular readers know I do not blog much about federal sentence reasonableness review these days because there is usually not that much worth blogging about.  Out of many thousands of appeals brought by federal defendants each year, typically only a few hundred are successful, and these are usually involve miscalculation of the guideline range.  The government rarely appeals, though it does often have a better success rate in the few dozen appeals it brings each year. 

In one particular (and rare) categories of cases, namely terrorism cases, the government has a particularly notable history of appellate success when arguing a sentence in unreasonably lenient (see posts linked below for some historical examples).  A helpful reader made sure I did not miss a new Seventh Circuit panel ruling handed down yesterday in this category: US v. Daoud, No. 19-2174 (7th Cir. Nov. 17, 2020) (available here).  Federal sentencing fans will want to review this 26-page opinion in detail, but the start and few passages from the body of the opinion provides the basics:

Adel Daoud pressed the button to detonate a bomb that would have killed hundreds of innocent people in the name of Islam.  Fortunately, the bomb was fake, and the FBI arrested him on the spot.  Two months later, while in pretrial custody, Daoud solicited the murder of the FBI agent who supplied the fake bomb.  Two and a half years later, while awaiting trial on the first two charges, Daoud tried to stab another inmate to death using makeshift weapons after the inmate drew a picture of the Prophet Muhammad.  Daoud eventually entered an Alford plea, and the cases were consolidated for sentencing.  The district court sentenced Daoud to a combined total of 16 years’ imprisonment for the crimes.  The government appeals that sentence on the ground that it was substantively unreasonable.  We agree.  We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing....

[W]hile the district court paid lip service to the seriousness of the offenses, it undercut its own statements by unreasonably downplaying Daoud’s role in each offense.  District courts have broad discretion as to how to weigh the § 3553(a) factors, but a district court’s sentence must reflect a reasonable view of the facts and a reasonable weighing of the § 3553(a) factors....  Here, the district court sterilized Daoud’s offense conduct in ways that cannot be reconciled with the objective facts of these violent offenses.  That unreasonable view of the facts prevented the district court from properly weighing the seriousness of the offenses when selecting its sentence....

In the district court’s telling, Daoud’s age, mental health, and general awkwardness and impressionability converged to render him uniquely susceptible to criminal influence. A sentencing court is well within its rights to consider a defendant’s mental limitations in mitigation.... But that factor only goes so far in this case.  Daoud committed the attempted bombing around his 19th birthday.  He was 19 when he solicited the FBI agent’s murder and 21 when he tried to stab a fellow inmate to death.  In other words, he was college aged at all relevant times.  He may have been immature, but, as the court recognized, he was old enough to know what he was doing.

Prior posts on similar reasonableness ruling:

November 18, 2020 in Booker in the Circuits, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)