Sentencing Law and Policy

"In the wake of Miller and Montgomery: A national view of people sentenced to juvenile life without parole"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper from multiple authors recently published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. Here is its abstract:

Objective

The movement to end mass incarceration has largely concentrated on people serving shorter sentences for non-violent offenses.  There has been less consideration for the 1 in 7 people in prison serving life sentences, overwhelmingly for violent offenses, including those serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP).  Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions result in a pressing need for data on second chance considerations for JLWOP.  This study tracks outcomes of the national population of juvenile lifers.

Data/methods

We cross-reference data to identify the JLWOP population at the time of Miller (N = 2904) to build a demographic profile and track resentencing, release, and mortality statuses. Statistics and data visualization are used to establish national and state-level baselines.

Results

Findings reveal more than 2500 individuals have been resentenced and more than 1000 have been released.  There is notable state variation in the number of JLWOP sentences, the extent to which JLWOP is still allowed, sentence review mechanisms, and percentage of juvenile lifers released.

Conclusions/implications

The present study provides an important foundation for subsequent work to examine equity in the implementation of Miller and Montgomery within and across states, and to study reentry of an aging population that has spent critical life stages behind bars.

For executive connected to FTX collapse (and Sam Bankman-Fried's girlfriend), federal guidelines call for LWOP, but probation office recommends time served

If anyone wants a good example of the federal sentencing guidelines not doing an effective job of guiding a federal sentencing judge, consider the specifics of the upcoming high-profile sentencing of Caroline Ellison.  This CNBC story about a sentencing filing provides some of the background, as well as helpful links to some key court documents:

Lawyers for Caroline Ellison, the star witness in the prosecution of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, are recommending no prison time for their client’s role in the implosion of the crypto empire that was run by her former boss and ex-boyfriend.

In a court filing Tuesday night, the attorneys said that, at most, Ellison should be sentenced to time served and supervised release because of her swift return to the U.S. from FTX’s Bahamas headquarters in 2022 and her choice to voluntarily cooperate with the U.S. attorney’s office and financial regulators in helping them understand what went wrong at FTX and sister hedge fund Alameda Research. 

Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over Bankman-Fried’s case, cited Ellison’s testimony when he decided in March to sentence the FTX founder to 25 years behind bars.  Ellison, who ran Alameda Research, agreed to a plea deal in December 2022, a month after FTX spiraled into bankruptcy. Unlike Bankman-Fried, who was convicted of all seven criminal fraud charges against him, Ellison pleaded guilty to conspiracy and financial fraud charges, rather than go to trial.

The Tuesday filing also refers to the recommendation of the court’s Probation Department that Ellison be given a sentence of “time served with three years of supervised release” as a credit to her “extraordinary cooperation with the government” and “her otherwise unblemished record.”  Lawyers added that the department’s presentence report, which referenced numerous character testimonials speaking to Ellison’s ethics and integrity, also recommended that she not be fined.  “Caroline poses no risk of recidivism and presents no threat to public safety,” the filing says. “It would therefore promote respect for the law to grant leniency in recognition of Caroline’s early disclosure of the crimes, her unmitigated acceptance of responsibility for them, and — most importantly — her extensive cooperation with the government.”

In the filing, FTX CEO John Ray, who has been guiding the crypto firm through bankruptcy proceedings, describes Ellison’s cooperation as “valuable” in helping his team protect and preserve “hundreds of millions of dollars” in assets.  He added that she has worked with his advisors to provide information regarding private keys to cryptocurrency wallets that contain “estate assets, DeFi positions, FTX exchange internal account information, the use of third-party exchanges for pre-petition trading, and pre-petition auditing practices.”

The 67-page document describe large swaths of Ellison’s life, starting from her earliest days in Boston and stretching into her protracted and troubled romance with Bankman-Fried. In that time, she “moved around the globe at his direction, first to Hong Kong and later the Bahamas,” and “worked long, stressful, Adderall-fueled hours,” the filing says.  Bankman-Fried forced Ellison into a sort-of isolation, culminating in her moral compass being “warped,” the lawyers say. At his direction, Ellison helped “steal billions,” all while living “in dread, knowing that a disastrous collapse was likely, but fearing that disentangling herself would only hasten that collapse.”

“Bankman-Fried convinced her to stay, telling her she was essential to the survival of the business, and that he loved her,” all “while also perversely demonstrating that he considered her not good enough to be seen in public with him at high-profile events,” the filing says.

Though I have only had a chance to briefly scan Ellison's sentencing memorandum, I noticed it included no objection to the calculated guideline range, which produced "the Guidelines sentence of life imprisonment, reduced to the statutory maximum of 1,320 months" (110 years).  As guideline mavens know, the massive "loss" in this case drove Ellison’s guideline calculation to produce a recommended LWOP sentence; as federal sentencing mavens know, pleading guilty and providing "extraordinary cooperation with the government" is one critical way a defendant can seek to get a judge to ignore the guidelines at sentencing.

It will be interesting to see if the feds ask for any prison time here, but I am quite sure they will not be urging Judge Kaplan to follow the guidelines.  After all, the feds urged a sentence well below LWOP even for Sam Bankman-Fried even though his guideline calculation was literally "off the grid" and had the highest calculated offense level I had ever seen.  White-collar prosecutors and defense attorneys have long known, of course, that guideline calculations in high-dollar, white-collar cases often amount to a kind of Kabuki theater amounting to little of real substance.  That reality is surely on display, yet again, in the FTX sentencings.

Some prior related posts about SBF's sentencing

• You be the judge: what federal sentence for Sam Bankman-Fried after guilty verdict on seven criminal fraud counts? 
• Should a bounce in crypto markets mean a much lower federal sentence for Sam Bankman-Fried? 
• Lawyers for Sam Bankman-Fried in lengthy memo request "a sentence that returns Sam promptly to a productive role in society"
• Feds argue in sentencing memo that "legitimate purposes of punishment require a sentence of 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment" for Sam Bankman-Fried
• Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for his FTX frauds

"Fines, Forfeitures, and Federalism"

The title of this post is the title of this recent article I just came across via SSRN and authored by Jessica Asbridge. Here is its abstract:

Fines are ubiquitous in modern society, and they are imposed for both serious crimes and minor civil wrongs.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized that the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states, but that decision raises previously unexplored questions as to how to enforce the Clause’s protections in the states.  A key question is what role, if any, federalism should play in crafting doctrinal rules that apply the Clause’s protections to state and local fines and related property forfeitures.  This Article is the first to accord in-depth treatment to that important question.

The extent to which federalism principles should apply does not have an immediate and obvious answer.  On the one hand, federalism plays a significant role in the Court’s jurisprudence on the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.  The Court therefore generally takes a highly deferential approach in reviewing sentences of imprisonment.  Lower courts have applied that same deferential review in the context of the Excessive Fines Clause.  On the other hand, fines and forfeitures are unlike other forms of punishment — such as prison — because they are often used as a revenue source for state and local governments, creating a conflict of interest for state and local decision-making bodies.

To address this conundrum, this Article makes the novel argument that the Court should look to the exactions doctrine under the Takings Clause, which often implicates similar concerns of government self-interest and overreaching. Exactions and excessive fines are conceptually similar, but scholars thus far have overlooked the close relationship between them.  The exactions doctrine gives minimal weight to federalism concerns, and it applies a heightened-scrutiny standard that is well suited to the excessive fines context.  Indeed, differences between federal practice and state and local practices as to fines suggest that discretionary state and local fines should be subject to closer constitutional scrutiny than federal fines.  As a recent example illustrates, such heightened scrutiny would ensure that the Excessive Fines Clause is not merely a parchment barrier, while still accounting for variations between states and localities in terms of their communities’ values and needs.

A reminder that kicking a cat down the road can get you sentenced to years in a federal prison

I am a big animal lover, especially cats, and so I was struck by this notable NBC News story about a federal sentencing today in Texas for kicking a cat.  The story details that this cat kicking was quite extreme and horrific:

A Texas man on Tuesday was sentenced to more than three years in federal prison for kicking a cat “as if kicking a football field goal,” in a case of abuse that was recorded and shared on social media, prosecutors said.

Donaldvan Williams, 30, was sentenced to three years and four months in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas said in a statement....

He pleaded guilty in October to animal crushing and aiding and abetting in connection with the Oct. 15, 2021, incident in the parking lot of a Beaumont apartment complex, according to court records.  The cat was foaming at the mouth and convulsing as if it was poisoned, according to a factual basis of the crime filed in court following a plea deal....

The kick was recorded by another man, Decorius Mire, who encouraged Williams to kick the cat, prosecutors said. Mire posted the video to social media. Mire was sentenced last year to 18 months in prison....

Williams was charged with kicking the cat, but the animal’s torture did not end there. Someone else, whose identity was not known when the case was presented to a grand jury, poured an accelerant on the cat and set it on fire, the indictment against Williams says. The animal running away on fire was also recorded on video.

Each man's guilty plea dealt with kicking the cat and recording it, not the animal being set on fire, records show. Court records in the cases don’t appear to say if the cat lived or died.

I am inclined to suspect that the defendants here may have had some criminal history and/or were linked to the further torture of the cat to drive these sentencing outcomes.  Still, I suspect these cases may involve record-setting sentences for cat kicking.  Interestingly, almost exactly a decade ago, the New York Times a piece headlined "Should You Go to Jail for Kicking a Cat?".  That piece was a follo up to prompted by this NY Times piece headlined "He Kicked a Stray Cat, and Activists Growled." 

Rounding up some discouraging recent prison news stories from coast to coast

A helpful reader flagged for me a recent story about inmate deaths, and that reminded me that a number of discouraging prison stories had recently caught my eye.  Here is a partial round-up:

From the Chicago Cruisader, "New research links medical copays to reduced healthcare access in prisons"

From the Columbus Dispatch, "Ohio shouldn't put kids under age 14 in prisons, report says"

From the Milwaukee Courier, "Short on Fixes for Prison Problems, Wisconsin Weighs Independent Oversight"

From the Los Angeles Times, "Widespread sexual abuse of women in two California prisons draws federal investigation"

From Reason.com, "A Federal Prison Was Warned About Synthetic Marijuana. Then Inmates Started Overdosing."

From Reason.com, "Federal Judge Rules Inmate Death Records Can Remain Secret Because They Could Embarrass Prison Officials"

From WFSU, "Incarceration deaths are increasing across the country -- including in Florida"

"Justice Theater in the Criminal Law Curriculum"

I just came across this recent article about legal education that was posted to SSRN earlier this year and is authored by Gregory Brazeal. (I wrote a little on this topic more than 20 years ago, and I still view legal education on crime and punishment matters to be important underexplored issues.)  Here is this new article's abstract:

For the last half-century, law students have been required to take a criminal law course that ostensibly trains them to think critically about the justifications for criminal punishment.  The same students have then gone on to serve as central actors in a system of mass incarceration that millions of Americans today view as profoundly unjust.  How did this happen?

A number of legal scholars, notably including Alice Ristroph in her 2020 article “The Curriculum of the Carceral State,” have argued that the traditional criminal law curriculum has played a role in creating and reproducing the practices of mass incarceration.  This article agrees, and focuses on two concrete critiques, alongside two corresponding curricular reforms.

First, criminal law courses routinely introduce the field in part by discussing a series of theoretical “justifications of punishment” such as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.  These discussions often provide students with tools for arguing in favor of punishment, and in particular incarceration, without providing relevant empirical evidence that shows the limits of the theoretical justifications.  Students are invited to focus on the theoretical benefits of incarceration without being adequately exposed to the negative effects of incarceration as it is actually practiced in the United States today.

The tradition of introducing criminal law through the discussion of theoretical justifications for punishment should be abandoned.  Instead, the article proposes beginning the criminal law course with an empirically informed discussion that frames criminal law as one response among many to the social problem of public safety.  Second, the bulk of most criminal law casebooks consists of excerpts from judicial opinions.  These excerpts tend to describe harmful acts carried out by defendants without providing adequate context for thinking seriously about justice.  The excerpts send the message that criminal harms result from isolated, individual choices by bad people, rather than being conditioned by situational and other factors, including policy choices by the state.

The article proposes replacing criminal law case excerpts with a method of instruction based on case studies, similar to the case study method used in many professional schools.  Case studies could provide students with more context for understanding criminal harms, and in particular could better equip future prosecutors to serve as “problem-solver[s] responsible for considering [the] broad goals of the criminal justice system,” as the ABA Criminal Justice Standards demand. In the coming years, the arrival of the NextGen bar exam will offer an occasion to reconsider how criminal law is taught in the United States.  Rather than continuing to train students in ways of thinking that facilitate mass incarceration, the curriculum should be changed. 

Former Prez Trump goes all in on marijuana reform ... perhaps as a pregame strategy for big Prez debate

I have been covering over at my other blog statements by former Prez Donald Trump about marijuana reform: in this post nine days ago, I noted the social media post seemingly supportive of Florida's marijuana legalization ballot initiative; in this post last week, I noted further comments suggesting his likely support for federal rescheduling.  Now, via this latest social media posting from late last night, Trump has made it quite clear that he is all-in on both state and federal marijuana reforms: 

As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November.  As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens.

These policy positions are quite interesting and significant in their own right, but it is also notable that Trump starts his latest social media posting of his pro-reform positions with this notable preamble: "As I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use."  This sentiment reinforces my prior stated view that Trump, ever the populist, understands that decriminalizing marijuana for personal use is very popular.  But it also now has me thinking that Trump is gearing up to attack VP Kamala Harris at their coming debate over her record as a local prosecutor jailing persons for low-level marijuana offenses.  

Of course, there is a notable history of Harris being attacked on her marijuana record by Tusli Gabbart back in 2019.  This new NBC News article talks about that moment and how "Gabbard won loud, raucous cheers and applause" after stating that Harris "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana."   And, of course, Gabbart has recently endorsed Trump and is apparently part of his debate-prep team:

Asked about Gabbard’s involvement in debate preparations — such as they are in Trump world — a Trump campaign official said she had been helpful getting Trump to think about the pivot from attacking Harris to highlighting his policies or what he would do differently.  That included talking through how to take things one step beyond the attack lines he gives at rallies into cohesive debate answers.  The campaign official said the Trump team had been trying to get Gabbard involved for a while. “Tulsi Gabbard whipped Kamala Harris’ butt on the debate stage,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said. “She’s offering her advice to President Trump ahead of Tuesday’s debate.”

Interesting times, and likely also reflective of the fact that marijuana reform is especially popular with many young voters that Trump seems eager to court.  And, for anyone thinking more broadly about criminal justice issues and the coming Prez debate, the Sentencing Matters Substack team has a new post for you: "Presidential Debate: Agreements Call for Deeper Probing on Crime and Punishment."

Some recent related posts:

• Former Prez Trump articulates forceful support for state marijuana legalization, federal rescheduling and banking reforms
• Former Prez Trump suggests he is supportive of marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere
• Does former Prez Trump's praise for medical marijuana suggest he would robustly support federal marijuana rescheduling?
• Ever the criminal justice reform populist, former Prez Trump signals support for marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere 

Spotlighting new book that spotlights First Step Act compassionate release and sentence reconsideration

I was pleased to see that Adam Liptak today committed his Sidebar column in the New York Times to federal compassionate release issues in conjunction with US District Judge Frederic Block's new book  on the topic, "A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It."  I recommend both the full NYTimes article and the full book.  The subtitle of the article serves as a kind of summary of both: "In a new book, Judge Frederic Block, who has served for decades, urged courts to vindicate the promise of the First Step Act, which lets prisoners ask for compassionate release from their sentences."  And here are excerpts from the article:

Judge Frederic Block is 90, and he has had decades to consider what counts as his gravest responsibility. “Look,” he said over the phone the other day, “the most important part of the job of a district court judge is sentencing.”...

Still, sometimes a sentence that made sense when it was imposed can look like a bad fit over time. Prisoners grow old or get sick.  The laws under which they were sentenced change.  Others who committed the same crimes get starkly different prison terms. Doubts arise about guilt.  On occasion, everyone agrees that the prisoner has been thoroughly rehabilitated.

In a timely book to be published next week, Judge Block makes a vigorous case for giving judges wide discretion to revisit sentencing decisions, describing cases he has encountered and urging states to adopt a more lenient approach.

The book, “A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It,” arrives as federal courts are deeply divided on the question, one prompted by an extraordinary 2018 law, the First Step Act.  The law, enacted by enormous bipartisan margins and with President Donald J. Trump’s backing, overhauled federal sentencing.  A major feature of the law lets prisoners file motions for compassionate release in “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances.

“The First Step Act just really changed the sentencing landscape in the United States, because we are getting these motions every week,” said Judge Block, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.  “As I speak right now, I probably have two new ones today,” he said. “Understandably, the district court bench will be inundated with them.  Because if you’re in jail and you have the opportunity to make an application asking the district court judge to reduce your sentence, you want to do it.”

But what counts as “extraordinary and compelling” is deeply contested.

US Sentencing Commission releases FY 2024 third quarter sentencing data

The US Sentencing Commission last week released on its website its latest quarterly data report, this one labelled "3rd Quarter Release, Preliminary Fiscal Year 2024 Data Through June 30, 2024."  These new data with the latest accounting of federal sentencing trends helps to further define the new normal in federal sentencing patterns.  As I have noted before, and as reflected in Figure 2, the quarters just prior to the COVID pandemic averaged roughly 20,000 federal sentencings per quarter; the "new normal" over the past year is roughly 15,000 and 16,000 total federal cases sentenced each quarter (and Figure 2 shows that declines in immigration sentencings accounts for the decrease in overall cases sentenced).

As I have also noted before, the other big COVID-era trend of historically large numbers of below-guideline variances has persisted for years now (as detailed in Figures 3 and 4). I continue to suspect this trend is mostly a facet of the different caseload and case mixes.  Interestingly, in the most recent two quarters, the official data show a small but notable uptick in the percentage of all federal sentences that are imposed "Within Guideline Range."  But it remains the case that a majority of federal sentences are being imposed outside the guideline range (for a wide array of reasons) than are being imposed inside the calculated range.

As I have also flagged before, the modern USSC's data on drug sentencing reflected in Figures 11 and 12 remains fascinating. These figures show, for the last three quarters, that over 46% of all federal drug sentencings involved methamphetamine and the average sentence for all those meth cases is well over eight years in prison.  Also notable is how few marijuana (2.7%) and crack cocaine (4.0%) cases are being sentenced in federal courts.  

As always, there are more big and small stories to mine from the latest USSC data.  But the relative consistency of the system, even with lots of notable recent reforms by the Commission and talk of more, is my consistent take away from these valuable data runs. 

Flagging a number of notable recent Inquest essays

It has been some time since I have highlighted items from Inquest, "a decarceral brainstorm," in part because the site has been recently running essays mostly focused on policing issues.  But I noticed a number of more punishment-focused pieces, and here I will  flag a handful of newer pieces sentencing fans may want to check out:

By Paul Butler & Cristian Farias, "Returning to Freedom: A PBS series on reentry is exposing audiences to how people leaving prison grow, heal, and thrive despite their past." By

By Joseph Margulies, "A Forgiving Society: Only by approaching each person as a member of society—rather than an outcast—will we begin to unwind the punitive turn of the past sixty years."

By Raj Jayadev, "People-Powered Defense: Participatory defense allows families and communities to protect their own in courtroom spaces that have long robbed them of power."

By William Kissinger, "Squinting in the Sunlight: Most reentry programs assume a person who is able to work and live on their own. Those of us who are older don’t have that kind of freedom."

By Stephen Wilson, "Unsettled People: Prison transfers are routinely used to punish, disorient, and isolate incarcerated people, disconnecting them from family, friends, community, and all sense of place."

"Recidivist Organizational Offenders and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines"

The title of this post is the title of this new article now available via SSRN authored by Kaleb Byars. Here is its abstract:

Despite recent Congressional hearings and public attention, the question of how to fairly and efficiently punish recidivist organizational offenders remains unresolved.  Any discussion regarding the most optimal legal response to recidivist organizational crime is incomplete without a solution accounting for the use of organizational deferred prosecution agreements ("DPAs") and non-prosecution agreements ("NPAs").  These tools allow criminal defendants to resolve charges without sustaining convictions that attach to the defendants' criminal records, and they are used often in the organizational context.

This Article is the first to recognize that the federal sentencing scheme fails to promote deterrence and fairness in the context of organizational sentencing and is the first to offer a practical solution to this problem.  The federal sentencing scheme currently does not require an increase in an organizational defendant's sentence when the defendant previously executed DPAs or NPAs before its subsequent criminal conduct.  Yet the federal sentencing guidelines do require an increase in an individual defendant's sentence if the individual previously executed a DPA. Meanwhile, the existence of prior DPAs and NPAs is a hallmark of organizational recidivism that demonstrates an organization is more culpable than other organizational defendants.  Accordingly, this Article recommends that the Sentencing Commission amend the federal sentencing guidelines to require sentencing courts to increase organizations’ sentences based on prior DPAs and NPAs.  This Article offers specific amendments for consideration. Finally, until the sentencing guidelines are amended, sentencing courts can use tools already in place to begin imposing more fair organizational sentences.

Former Prez Trump's state sentencing date push to week of Thanksgiving

As reported in this New York Times piece, the "judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan postponed his sentencing until after Election Day, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to overturn his conviction and win back the White House."  Here is more from the start of the article:

In a ruling on Friday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26. He had previously planned to hand down Mr. Trump’s punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump will face off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.

While the decision will avert a courtroom spectacle in the campaign’s final stretch, the delay itself could still affect the election, keeping voters in the dark about whether the Republican presidential nominee will eventually spend time behind bars.

It is unclear whether sentencing Mr. Trump in September would have helped or harmed him politically; his punishment could have been an embarrassing reminder of his criminal record, but could have also propelled his claims of political martyrdom.

Justice Merchan’s decision came at the request of Mr. Trump, who had asked to delay the sentencing until after the election, partly so he had more time to challenge his conviction. Prosecutors working for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the case, had deferred to the judge, paving the way for at least a brief postponement.

UPDATE: I have now seen this letter released by Justice Merchan to explain his adjuornment decision. Here are a few key passages:

'This matter is one that stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation's history, and this Court has presided over it since its inception — from arraignmcnt to jury verdict and a plenitude of motions and other matters in-between.  Were this Court to decide, after careful consideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump, that this case should proceed, it would be faced with one of the most critical and difficult decisions a trial court judge faces — the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of crimes by a unanimous jury of his peers....

Unfoftunately, we are now at a placeirn time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute.  Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adiournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the CPL § 330.30 motion and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance — however unwarranted — that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.

On morning of scheduled federal trial, Hunter Biden attempts to enter an Alford plea

As reported here in the Washington Post, "President Joe Biden’s son Hunter tried to resolve his federal tax case Thursday as jury selection was about to begin, offering an Alford plea in which he maintains he is innocent but acknowledges that the prosecution’s evidence would likely result in a guilty verdict." Here is more:

Prosecutors objected to the proposal, which they had not been told of in advance.  U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi is expected to decide this afternoon whether to adjourn the proceedings until Friday or give the two sides more time to come to agreement.

“I want to make crystal clear: the U.S. opposes an Alford plea ... Hunter Biden is not innocent, he is guilty," Leo Wise, an attorney working for special counsel David Weiss, told the judge. "We came to court to try this case.”

Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, noted that Alford pleas are an option available to all criminal defendants — even though such plea agreements are relatively rare. “All over the U.S. people do this,” Lowell said.  "It’s not that [Hunter Biden] seeks special treatment, but that he gets the same rights as everyone who is charged.”

Weiss charged Biden last year on nine tax-related counts, accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes from 2016 through 2019.  Three charges were felonies and six were misdemeanors.  They include failing to file and pay taxes, tax evasion and filing false tax returns. Weiss separately charged Biden last year with three felony gun counts in Delaware.  A jury convicted Biden on all three charges in June, and he is scheduled for sentencing in November.

The indictments came after a lengthy investigation into Biden’s business dealings while his father was vice president, which Republican lawmakers and former president Donald Trump have tried to use as evidence of corruption within the Biden family. No evidence has surfaced publicly to suggest any wrongdoing by Joe Biden.

The younger Biden has said he has undergone treatment for addiction and is no longer using drugs. While his addiction to crack cocaine was a central theme of his gun trial, the Los Angeles case is expected to delve into Biden’s lavish spending and sex life during that period — much of which he chronicled in his 2021 memoir. Among the accusations laid out in the nine-count indictment is that Biden wrote off money he paid sex workers as business expenses on his tax forms.

An Alford plea, named after a case North Carolina v. Alford, is a way for a defendant to register a formal admission of guilt toward charges they are facing while simultaneously maintaining their innocence. United States attorneys are only able to consent to Alford pleas “in the most unusual of circumstances” and consult with top officials at the Department of Justice before doing so, according to federal prosecution guidelines....

The president, who has made clear he thinks the criminal charges against his son are politically motivated, has said emphatically that he does not plan to pardon Hunter Biden’s criminal convictions. Some of Hunter Biden’s allies hope he will change his mind, however, and issue a pardon after the November election.

Just as Hunter Biden was beginning the day in court, the president was leaving the White House to travel to La Crosse, Wis., for an event touting his administration’s economic policies. From Air Force One, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated that the president would not pardon or commute Hunter Biden’s sentence. “No," she told reporters on Air Force One. "It is still very much a no.”

UPDATE: This Politico article reports that Hunter Biden's guilty plea was entered this afternoon, though it appears it was just a standard open plea to the charges rather than an Alford plea:

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty Thursday to tax evasion and other tax crimes in an 11th-hour about-face that surprised prosecutors as a trial was about to begin....

The only remaining question now is how much prison time, if any, Biden will face. Shortly after Biden entered his guilty plea, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi scheduled his sentencing on the tax charges for Dec. 16. Biden is scheduled to be sentenced in the gun case in November.

Biden faces up to 17 years in prison for the tax charges, though experts say lighter sentences in similar cases are more common. Scarsi will consider Biden’s admission of guilt when he sentences him....

The plea was not part of a plea deal, meaning prosecutors did not promise to recommend a reduced prison sentence....  After Scarsi questioned the Alford arrangement and signaled he might seek further legal arguments on whether he should accept it, Biden conferred with his lawyers and entered a straightforward guilty plea.

<P>As Scarsi questioned Biden about the plea in open court, the judge stressed that he still had the authority to hand down a hefty sentence.  “With regard to sentencing, there’s no guarantees. You understand that?” Scarsi, an appointee of Donald Trump, asked....

Biden is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 13 in the gun case, where federal sentencing guidelines recommend up to 21 months in prison, though Biden could receive much less or even no prison time at all.  In the tax case, prosecutors alleged that Biden earned more than $7 million during the years in question and later plotted to fraudulently lower the taxes he owed on that income by falsely labeling trips and other luxury purchases as business expenses. They said he used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle filled with drugs, strippers and sports cars.

"Terminating Supervision Early"

The title of this post is the title of this new article now available via SSRN and authored by Jacob Schuman.  Here is its abstract:

Community supervision is a major form of criminal punishment and a major driver of mass incarceration.  Over 3.5 million people in the United States are serving terms of probation, parole, or supervised release, and revocations account for nearly half of all prison admissions.  Although supervision is intended to prevent crime and promote reentry, it can also interfere with the defendant’s reintegration by imposing onerous restrictions as well as punishment for non-criminal technical violations.  Probation officers also carry heavy caseloads, which forces them to spend more time on enforcing conditions and less on providing support.

Fortunately, the criminal justice system also includes a mechanism to solve these problems: early termination of community supervision.  From the beginning, the law has always provided a way for the government to cut short a defendant’s term of supervision if they could demonstrate that they had reformed themselves.  Recently, judges, correctional officials, and activists have called to increase rates of early termination in order to save resources, ease the reentry process, and encourage rehabilitation.  Yet despite all this attention from the field, there are no law-review articles on terminating supervision early.

In this Article, I provide the first comprehensive analysis of early termination of community supervision.  First, I recount the long history of early termination, from the invention of probation and parole in the 1800s to the Safer Supervision Act of 2023.  Next, I identify and critique recent legal changes that have made it harder for federal criminal defendants to win early termination of supervised release.  Finally, I propose the first empirically based sentencing guideline on terminating supervision early, which I recommend in most cases after 18 to 36 months.  If community supervision drives mass incarceration, then early termination offers a potential tool for criminal justice reform.

Prison Policy Initiative provides "Mass Incarceration 101: Resources to help students and teachers understand the carceral system"

Prison Policy Initiative have this timely new posting authored by Danielle Squillante with this full title: "Mass Incarceration 101: Resources to help students and teachers understand the carceral system: It’s back to school season, so we’ve curated information and tools for students and teachers to use when researching the carceral system."  The posting serves to highlight a number of PPI's major data reports, and it worth a full read.  Here is how it gets started:

Students and teachers are heading back to the classroom. In addition to math, science, and language arts, many will also focus on the criminal legal system and mass incarceration. Unfortunately for them, the carceral system operates like a black box, making it hard to study what’s happening inside the walls of prisons and jails. Fortunately, we have made it our business to make the data that does exist as accessible and understandable as possible.

To better support the work of students and teachers, we’ve curated a list of publications and tools they can use to better study the carceral system and that can serve as launchpads for further research.

Where to start: The big picture

To start any lesson on mass incarceration, you have to understand the U.S. doesn’t have one criminal legal system; instead, it has thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems that incarcerate a combined population of nearly 2 million people.

Our flagship report, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, puts these pieces together to give the “big picture” of mass incarceration by explaining not only the scale of our carceral system but also the policy choices that have driven its expansion.  It provides the most comprehensive picture of how many people are locked up in the U.S., in what types of facilities, and why.  In addition to showing how many people are behind bars on any given day in the U.S., it goes on to bust 10 of the most persistent myths about prisons, jails, crime, and more.

Reviewing the state and challenges surrounding former Prez Trump's approaching state sentencing date

The New York Times has this lengthy new piece, headlined "In Deciding When to Sentence Trump, Judge Faces ‘Impossible’ Task," providing a reminder that former Prez Donald Trump is scheduled to be sentenced two weeks from today and all of issues surrounding that reality.  Here are some excerpts:

Justice Merchan has made a steadfast effort to approach the landmark case no differently than hundreds of others he has overseen.  But more than three months after a Manhattan jury convicted Mr. Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal, the veteran judge faces his greatest predicament: He must decide whether to sentence Mr. Trump as planned on Sept. 18 or wait until after Election Day, as Mr. Trump has requested.

Justice Merchan has already agreed to delay the sentencing once, and his upcoming decision — which will be made in the heat of a presidential campaign that has pitted Mr. Trump against Vice President Kamala Harris — will reverberate well beyond his Lower Manhattan courtroom.  The decision could influence not only the election, but American politics for years to come.   And it will almost certainly subject Justice Merchan to partisan second-guessing at a time when the nation’s faith in the judiciary has been shaken by the Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion, guns and other issues, as well as revelations about some of its justices’ own political entanglements....

While Mr. Trump has already been deemed a felon, if Justice Merchan postpones his sentencing until after the Nov. 5 election, the American people will vote without knowing whether Mr. Trump will spend time behind bars.  A delay would also reward the stalling tactics Mr. Trump has deployed throughout the case, and feed the very impression the judge has labored to dispel — that the former president is above the law.  Yet if Justice Merchan, a moderate Democrat who was once a registered Republican, imposes a sentence just seven weeks before Election Day, Mr. Trump will no doubt accuse him of trying to tip the campaign in favor of Ms. Harris....

“Whatever decision Judge Merchan makes will not only be the right decision, it will be driven by nothing other than that which occurred in the context of this case,” said Jill Konviser, a retired judge who has known Justice Merchan for more than 15 years.  “Donald Trump will be treated fairly,” she added.  “Of that, I am 100 percent sure.”...

After finalizing Mr. Trump’s sentencing date, Justice Merchan faces still more delicate decisions.  The judge has promised to rule this month on Mr. Trump’s request to throw out his conviction in light of a new Supreme Court ruling granting presidents some immunity from prosecution.  And, at some point, he will have to actually decide whether to put Mr. Trump behind bars.

Mr. Trump, the first president to become a felon, faces up to four years in prison.  But legal experts believe it is more likely that Justice Merchan will sentence Mr. Trump to a few months in jail or probation.  Whatever his punishment, Mr. Trump is unlikely to be incarcerated before the election.  Even if the judge hands down the sentence on Sept. 18, he could postpone any punishment until after Election Day, or, if Mr. Trump wins back the White House, until after his second term expires.

Nor is Justice Merchan likely to have the final say.  The former president will appeal his conviction to higher courts, and if Justice Merchan sticks with the plan to sentence him on Sept. 18, Mr. Trump will likely appeal that decision as well.

"Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Voices Touched by Violence"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new huge report from the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.  The email I received about the report explains that it examines "the prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the backgrounds of women incarcerated for homicide in California."  Here is the start of the report's executive summary:

The women’s rate of incarceration in the United States has grown twice as fast as that of men in recent decades.  Research has established that many incarcerated women have histories of abuse throughout their lives, including intimate partner violence (IPV), and that this abuse may contribute to their criminalization.  Gender-based violence results in an array of negative physical and mental health consequences, with intimate partner homicide (IPH) as the most severe outcome.

For women who are arrested, convicted, and sentenced for actions like homicide arising out of their own victimization, the law generally fails to account for domestic and intimate partner violence even when this abuse is supposed to be considered as a mitigating factor.  Unfortunately, little scholarship has examined the linkage between genderbased violence and women’s experiences as defendants ensnared in a broad and powerful criminal legal system.

The overarching purpose of our project was to understand how people experiencing genderbased violence are criminalized for actions they took to survive abuse. While IPV exists for people of all genders, we focused on women given their disproportionate rates of severe and lethal intimate partner abuse.  We also centered our study on people convicted of the most serious of offenses and serving the longest sentences — murder and manslaughter.

Specific objectives were to:

 (1) Quantify the prevalence of IPV and the potential lethality of the abuse;

(2) Describe the nature of the relationship between the survivor-defendant and the decedent as it relates to the circumstances of the offense; and

(3) Identify the extent to which the criminal legal system accounts for IPV.

The lengthy reports discusses sentencing in various ways, and this passage particularly caught my eye:

Although we did not systematically ask respondents about their co-defendants’ sentences, we were able to glean some information about sentencing disparities from their narrative responses.  In some cases, respondents received higher sentences than their co-defendants for less culpable conduct because their co-defendants testified against them.  As one respondent shared, “My ex-boyfriend was the one who did the actual crime. And both of them are already out of prison. I did not participate in the actual crime.  I should have a chance to get out of prison.”  Similarly, many co-defendants took plea deals to [testify against] respondents—even if the respondent did not cause the killing.

Exciting new "Real-Time Crime Index" website officially launched

Regular readers are used to seeing my references to the YTD Murder Comparison from the folks at AH Datalytics.  I am excited to see that these folks now have launched a "Real-Time Crime Index."   Jeff Asher has this new substack post discussing the launch and the tool, and here are excerpts:

The Real-Time Crime Index (or RTCI for short) launches today at https://www.realtimecrimeindex.com!  The RTCI presents a new way of looking at crime data by collecting current crime data from hundreds of law enforcement agencies nationwide to present national crime trends as never seen before: as they develop.

The RTCI was built thanks to generous support from Arnold Ventures and incredible hard work from the RTCI team: Dave Hatten, Katie Schwipps, and Oscar Boochever (as well as my co-founder Ben Horwitz and a ton of people who helped advise on data collection, auditing, and visualization).  The goal of this project is to provide this information so that anyone — regardless of their location, expertise in crime data, political persuasion, or policy preferences — can use it to understand crime locally or nationally.

The RTCI currently has data from more than 350 agencies covering over 80 million people though not all of those agencies have available data for every month from January 2017 through June 2024.  The agencies that do have data for every month since 2017 make up the nationwide sample which as of June 2024 has 304 agencies covering over 76 million people with full data in at least one crime category.  The national sample right now covers around 25 percent of the nation’s population and 45 percent of the murders that occur each year.

I’ll do a post tomorrow with much more detail about what the RTCI says about national crime trends and another post — probably next week — going deeper into the methodology behind the RTCI.  Overall, violent crime and property crime are falling in the United States according to the RTCI’s sample of data through June 2024.  Murder was down roughly 16 percent midway through the year, with overall violent and property crime down 5 and 9 percent respectively.  The RTCI also shows that the big property crime decline is being driven by motor vehicle theft falling 17 percent, after rising considerably each year from 2020 through 2023.

But the beauty of the RTCI is that anyone can see the data, the trends, the sourcing, and the methodology to evaluate what’s happening.  All of the current data for every city comes from either agencies themselves or state UCR programs with data received either through publicly available open data or sent to us directly from agencies or state UCR programs.

"Prosecution Deferred"

The title of this post is the title of this recent article available on SSRN authored by Shima Baradaran Baughman and Taylor Broadbent. Here is its abstract:

Deferred prosecution agreements (or DPAs) have been used with increasing frequency, particularly in corporate criminal prosecutions, over the past two decades.  By allowing prosecutors to offer a path for rehabilitation without ever having to bring charges against a defendant, deferred adjudication presents a valuable tool for progressive prosecutors to use in a broader movement for criminal justice reform.

However, data on how prosecutors use DPAs –– how often they are offered, and who they are offered to –– has long been lacking.  Drawing on a recent national experiment studying state and local prosecutors, we aim to supplement the existing data to help answer these questions.  We then draw on this more complete picture of how prosecutors at all levels are using DPAs to conclude that, contrary to congressional intent, DPAs have come to be used in practically every corporate criminal prosecution, while they are offered to resolve only a small fraction of individual prosecutions.  We argue that this troubling trend not only runs contrary to the legislation that initiated deferred prosecution agreements but is unjustified on public policy grounds.  This misalignment can likely be remedied by using deferred adjudication more frequently in individual prosecutions, presenting a valuable tool to respond to the endemic challenges of overcriminalization and mass incarceration, while still holding individuals accountable for crime. Increasing the use of deferred adjudication allows individuals facing criminal charges an opportunity at rehabilitation without the collateral consequences and reputational tarnish of prosecution. 

Two recent takes on the pendulum swings in recent justice reform efforts

In our nation, reform movements can often have a tendency to moderate over time, and that seem especially true in the criminal justice space where we can often see major (and minor) pendulum swings in reform efforts and broader politics. These moderating tendencies came to mind upon seeing this morning two recent notable pieces discussing, in somewhat differing contexts, the current state of reform efforts:

From The Atlantic, "Bipartisan Criminal-Justice Reform Is Still Very Much Alive: Yes, the pace of progress has slowed, but it certainly continues."

From the Marshall Project, "How Efforts to Cut Long Prison Sentences Have Stalled: Crime victim advocates and conservative groups are resisting moves to revisit 'truth-in-sentencing' laws."

UPDATE:  After doing this post, I came across another recent article discussing another recent pendulum swing:

From the Washington Post, "Hard drugs illegal again in Oregon as first-in-nation experiment ends:  Those who supported a measure that went into effect in 2021, which legislators rolled back this year, said it sought to help instead of simply handcuff."