Sentencing Law and Policy

SCOTUS grants cert on four new criminal cases, including one on FIRST STEP Act retroactivity of reduced crack sentences

The Supreme Court last night issued this order list which grants review in 14 new cases that will be heard later this SCOTUS Term.  Four of the cases involve criminal issues, and one is a sentencing case concerning the reach and application of the FIRST STEP Act's provisions making the reduced crack sentences of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.  This SCOTUSblog post has a lot more about the sentencing case and a brief review of the others:

In Terry v. United States, the justices agreed to weigh in on a technical sentencing issue that has significant implications for thousands of inmates: whether a group of defendants who were sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses before Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018. The Fair Sentencing Act reduced (but did not eliminate) the disparity in sentences for convictions involving crack and powder cocaine, and the First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.  The specific question that the court agreed to decide is whether the changes made by the First Step Act extend to inmates convicted of the most minor crack-cocaine offenses.

In a “friend of the court” brief urging the justices to grant review in another case presenting the same question, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers explained that the lower courts are divided on this question; as a result, NACDL wrote, Supreme Court review is necessary “to prevent thousands of predominately Black defendants from being forced to spend years longer in prison than identically situated defendants” elsewhere in the country “and to ensure that Congress’s goal of alleviating the racial disparities in sentencing caused by the 1986 law’s harsh sentencing regime is realized.”

Other grants on Friday are:

• Greer v. United States: Whether, when applying plain-error review based on an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, a court of appeals can look at matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or affected the trial’s fairness, integrity or public reputation....
• United States v. Palomar-Santiago: Whether charges that a non-citizen illegally reentered the United States should be dismissed when the non-citizen’s removal was based on the misclassification of a prior conviction....
• United States v. Gary: Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowing that he is a felon.

"Thirteen Charged in Federal Court Following Riot at the United States Capitol; Approximately 40 charged in Superior Court"

The title of this post is the heading of this new DOJ press release.  Here are excerpts:

Thirteen individuals have been charged so far in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. In addition to those who have been charged, additional complaints have been submitted and investigations are ongoing.

“The lawless destruction of the U.S. Capitol building was an attack against one of our Nation’s greatest institutions,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin. “My Office, along with our law enforcement partners at all levels, have been expeditiously working and leveraging every resource to identify, arrest, and begin prosecuting these individuals who took part in the brazen criminal acts at the U.S. Capitol. We are resolute in our commitment to holding accountable anyone responsible for these disgraceful criminal acts, and to anyone who might be considering engaging in or inciting violence in the coming weeks – know this: you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

“ATF is committed to the rule of law and the protection of all citizens’ Constitutional rights,” said Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Regina Lombardo. “We continue to support our law enforcement partners to ensure those who violated the law during the events at the Capitol this week are brought to justice. ATF has dedicated all appropriate resources to complete these investigations as soon as possible.”

“Today’s charges are just the beginning of the FBI’s ongoing efforts to hold those responsible for the criminal acts of violence and destruction that unfolded during the U.S. Capitol building breach on January 6th,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “To be clear, what took place that day was not First Amendment-protected activity, but rather an affront on our democracy. The FBI, along with our local, state and federal partners, is committed to ensuring that justice is served. We will continue to aggressively investigate each and every individual who chose to ignore the law and instead incite violence, destroy property, and injure others."...

In addition, approximately 40 individuals have been arrested and charged in Superior Court with offenses including, but not limited to, unlawful entry, curfew violations, and firearms-related crimes.

I have left out the lengthy details of all the charges for the 13 defendants listed in the release, but there is a bit of diversity as to the charges facing some of the particular defendants.  And the press release also includes links to the criminal complaints and statements of facts for these 13 defendants.  The main charge is often "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority" under 18 U.S.C. § 1752, and that seems to carry a max sentence of one year imprisonment, though that max goes up to 10 years if the offender had a weapon or "the offense results in significant bodily injury."

The new death penalty: Marshall Project reporting COVID has now killed more than 2000 prisoners in the United States

I am always sad to report when we pass yet another remarkable milestone in COVID prisoner deaths, but passing a new big ugly number prompts another one of my series of "new death penalty" posts.  The Marshall Project, which continues the critical job of counting via this webpage prisoner deaths from coronavirus, reports as of Thursday, January 8, 2021 that there are now "at least 2010 deaths from coronavirus reported among prisoners." 

Notably, just a month ago as noted in this post, the COVID prisoner death accounting was "only" at 1568 deaths.  So we have seen a huge uptick in prisoner deaths in just the last month (which is somewhat unsurprising because the same uptick has been seen in the general population).   Sadly, we are also seeing a big increase in correctional staff dying from COVID.  The Marshall Project now reports "at least 139 deaths from coronavirus reported among prison staff," when that number was "only" at 105 deaths as of last month. 

I highlighted here a few weeks ago some of the sound arguments being made that incarcerated persons should be high on the list of who first receives the COVID vaccines.  These latest data should further advance that notion.

A few of many prior related posts:

• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed in nine months more US prisoners than capital punishment over last 50+ years (from Dec. 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed more US prisoners than capital punishment over last three decades (from Nov. 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed as many US prisoners as has a quarter century of capital punishment (from Oct 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed more US prisoners in months than the US death penalty has in the last two decades (from Aug 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed more US prisoners in weeks than the US death penalty has in over a decade (from May 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID has now killed more than 500 US prisoners and prison staff according to UCLA Law data (from May 2020)
• The new death penalty: COVID now a leading modern killer of California inmates on death row 
• From drug sentences to death sentences: documenting arbitrary and capricious drug war casualties
• Memorializing more drug war casualties: updating the federal drug sentences that COVID-19 turned into death sentences 

Gearing up for Prez Trump's coming final round of clemency grants

Prez Trump's ignominious behavior raises uncertainty as to whether he will serve out the last two weeks of his term.  But we can all be certain that Prez Trump is planning to issue more clemency grants before he loses the power to do so.  As everyone surely recalls, just before Christmas, Prez Trump granted clemency to all sorts of friends and family and politically-charged defendants (basics here and here).  And recent press reports detail other grants that could be forthcoming. 

First, this new New York Times piece, headlined "Trump Is Said to Have Discussed Pardoning Himself," cover the one particular possible pardon sure to generate the most buzz and controversy.  But I am even more intrigued by this new Bloomberg piece, headlined "Trump Prepares Pardon List for Aides and Family, and Maybe Himself," which discusses more fully other grants that may be in the works.  Here are excerpts:

President Donald Trump has prepared a sweeping list of individuals he’s hoping to pardon in the final days of his administration that includes senior White House officials, family members, prominent rappers -- and possibly himself, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump is hoping to announce the pardons on Jan. 19 -- his final full day in office -- and his ideas are currently being vetted by senior advisers and the White House counsel’s office, the people said....

He’s also considering a traditional pardon for Albert Pirro, who previously worked with the president on real estate deals and was convicted of tax fraud. Pirro is the ex-husband of Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, a former district attorney of Westchester County in New York.

Trump is similarly considering pardoning celebrities including rapper Lil Wayne -- with whom he posed for a photo during the presidential campaign --as well as rapper Kodak Black, who is serving time for falsifying paperwork to obtain a firearm.

Other prominent celebrities including rapper Lil Yachty and Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson have publicly lobbied Trump to pardon Kodak Black, who said in a now-deleted tweet that he would donate $1 million to charity if the president freed him.

Trump’s list is currently being vetted by lawyers who are concerned that pardons could create new allegations of obstruction of justice for members of the administration. The process is being managed in part by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While some of the proposed pardons have moved through the legal steps needed inside the White House, the idea of a self-pardon is far less developed, the people say, and so far only at the discussion stage.

I am hopeful, but not really optimistic, that there will be some good number of final Trumpian clemency grants for persons who are not well-connected or famous.  Whether there are or not, I hope Prez-elect Biden comes into office understanding that the best way to restore faith in the pardon power could be by using it right away to advance justice and mercy rather than parochial personal privilege.

A few recent related posts:

• A challenge for those troubled by Trump's final month clemencies: identify dozens, hundreds of comparable cases for Biden's first month
• Rounding up some notable recent criminal justice commentary
• Noticing the many regular forgotten folk so far left behind in Prez Trump's clemency capers 
• Lots of (surprising and unsurprising) clemency chatter ... and great advocacy for clemency change 
• "Presidential Pardons and the Problem of Impunity" 
• "The Legality of Presidential Self-Pardons" 
• Discussing clemency activity by Prez Trump for six more weeks seems unavoidable, doesn't it?

Sixth Circuit panel reiterates "district courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' on their own initiative" for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions

A helpful reader made sure I did not miss another recent notable Sixth Circuit ruling discussing the reach and application of the compassionate release provisions amended by the federal FIRST STEP Act.  A couple of months ago, as noted in this post, a Sixth Circuit's panel handed down US v. Jones, No. 20-3701 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (available here), to become then only the second circuit to rule expressly that district courts now have broad discretion to determine what now qualifies as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction now that federal courts can directly reduce sentences under the (so-called compassionate release) statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) without awaiting a motion by the Bureau of Prisons.  Yesterday, a distinct Sixth Circuit panel reiterated this important doctrinal reality in  US v. Elias, No. 20-3654 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) (available here).

Notably, the Elias decision ultimately affirmed a district court's decision not to grant a defendant any reduction in sentence.  But the ruling usefully restated the broad authority of district courts in this arena.  Here is some of that discussion:

This Court recently spoke on that question [of whether the existing sentencing guideline confines district court authority], stating that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates.  Jones, 980 F.3d at 1108–11.  The text of the guideline, along with the clear congressional purpose in the First Step Act of removing the BOP from its gatekeeping role, led this Court to its conclusion.  See id. (discussing the purpose of the First Step Act and noting that “[t]he first sentence of § 1B1.13 predicates the entire policy statement on the Director of the BOP’s filing a motion for compassionate release”).  The statement in Jones that § 1B1.13 was inapplicable to inmate-filed compassionate-release motions aligned with the Second Circuit, the first Circuit to rule on the matter, as well as the majority of district courts.  See Brooker, 976 F.3d at 234.  Since Jones, the Seventh Circuit and Fourth Circuit have reached the same conclusion.  See United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020); McCoy, 981 F.3d at 281–82.

Thus, there has emerged a newfound consensus among the courts, and the government provides no compelling reason for us to disturb the consensus of our sister Circuits. Therefore, we hold that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates, and so district courts need not consider it when ruling on those motions.  Further, we clarify that, as in Jones and Ruffin, district courts may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and do not need to address the others....  And, in the absence of an applicable policy statement for inmate-filed compassionate-release motions, district courts have discretion to define “extraordinary and compelling” on their own initiative.  See Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111; Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1007 (suggesting that without an “‘applicable’ policy statement for motions by defendants . . . district court[s] may freely identify extraordinary and compelling reasons”).

A few of many, many prior related posts:

• Compassionate release after FIRST STEP: Should many thousands of ill and elderly federal inmates now be seeking reduced imprisonment in court?
• New District Court ruling confirms that "any extraordinary and compelling reasons" can now provide basis for reducing imprisonment under 3582(c)(1)(A)
• Another thoughtful and thorough opinion finds statutory reform among "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing sentence under 3582(c)(1)(A) 
• A dozen new grants of federal sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A), including another based on stacking/disparity/trial penalty concerns 
• Second Circuit panel rules unanimously that district courts have broad discretion to consider "any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise" 
• Sixth Circuit panel rules "courts have full discretion" to determine extraordinary and compelling reasons for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions
• Seventh Circuit panel says old guideline does not limit potential "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions after FIRST STEP Act 
• Fourth Circuit becomes the fourth circuit to embrace a robust view of sentence reduction authority under 3582(c)(1)(A) after FIRST STEP Act 

Celebrity (gossip) edition of criminal justice round-up

In a weak effort to bring a smidge of lightness at a time when it is pretty easy to feel dark, here are some recent headlines at the intersection of celebrity stories and criminal justice developments:

• "Lori Loughlin Released From Prison After Serving Two Months for College Admissions Scandal"

• "Bill Cosby thanks Jesse Jackson for calling for his release from prison due to COVID-19 threat"

• "Michigan Passes Prison Reform Laws Supported by Meek Mill & Jay-Z's REFORM Alliance"

• "Kanye West Is ‘Jealous’ of Kim Kardashian Spending Time on Kids, Prison Reform"

• "Kim Kardashian fans want her to move on with close friend and CNN reporter Van Jones after Kanye West ‘split’"

Prez-elect Biden's slate of nominees for the Justice Department revealed, with Judge Merrick Garland tapped for Attorney General

As reported in this new AP piece, "President-elect Joe Biden has selected Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge who in 2016 was snubbed by Republicans for a seat on the Supreme Court, as his attorney general, two people familiar with the selection process said Wednesday."  Here is more on who is slated to help run a new Justice Department:

Biden is expected to announce Garland’s appointment on Thursday, along with other senior leaders of the department, including former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco as deputy attorney general and former Justice Department civil rights chief Vanita Gupta as associate attorney general.  He will also name an assistant attorney general for civil rights, Kristen Clarke, the president of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group.

Garland was selected over other finalists including Alabama Sen. Doug Jones and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.  The people familiar with the process spoke on condition of anonymity.  One said Biden regards Garland as an attorney general who can restore integrity to the Justice Department and as someone who, having served in the Justice Department under presidents of both political parties, will be respected by nonpartisan career staff.

If confirmed, Garland would confront immediate challenges, including an ongoing criminal tax investigation into Biden’s son, Hunter, as well as calls from many Democrats to pursue inquiries into Trump after he leaves office.  A special counsel investigation into the origins of the Russia probe also remains open, forcing a new attorney general to decide how to handle it and what to make public.  Garland would also inherit a Justice Department that has endured a tumultuous four years and would likely need to focus on not only civil rights issues and an overhaul of national policing policies after months of mass protests over the deaths of Black Americans at the hand of law enforcement.

It was unclear how Garland’s selection would be received by Black and Latino advocates who had advocated for a Black attorney general or for someone with a background in civil rights causes and criminal justice reform.  But the selection of Gupta and Clarke, two women with significant experience in civil rights, appeared designed to blunt those concerns and offered as a signal that progressive causes will be prioritized in the new administration....  Monaco brings to the department significant national security experience, including in cybersecurity — an especially urgent issue as the U.S. government confronts a devastating hack of federal agencies that officials have linked to Russia.

I have sensed that Garland's record as a relative moderate on criminal justice issues while serving as a judge on the DC Circuit has led many criminal justice reform advocates to not be especially excited by the prospect he could become Attorney General.  But, as this AP article suggests, the naming of Vanita Gupta as associate attorney general should exciting CJ reformers.  In forthcoming confirmation hearing and in other setting, it will be very interesting to see what tone a future AG Garland and other new DOJ members will set as to criminal justice reform efforts generally and as to what sets of CJ issues may be initially given the most attention.

Do the Georgia run-off Senate results dramatically shift the criminal justice reform landscape?

With Georgia election results this morning suggesting hat we will soon have a 50-50 Senate that puts Democrats functionally in control of all of Congress, I think the answer to the question in the title of this post has to be yes.  That said, I was reasonably bullish on at least some federal criminal justice reforms in the next Congress even if the GOP held a slim majority in the Senate.  But, as this Axios piece highlights, the results in Georgia may have an immediate impact on the look of Prez-elect Biden's Justice Department:

Between the lines: It'd be tough to go big with a 50-50 Senate, so don't assume a substantial shift.  But Democratic control would be a massive blow to Republican hopes of blowing up anything they truly loathe.

👀 What we're watching: Biden sources tell Axios he now can go more progressive on remaining Cabinet picks, notably attorney general and secretary of Labor.

Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general who was fired by Trump, could now go back on the table to be Biden's attorney general.

Aside from who is in charge at the Justice Department, I think a 50-50 Senate makes it somewhat more likely that DOJ would be somewhat more willing to take somewhat more progressive positions on an array of criminal justice reform issues.  And, of course, lots of appointments that require Senate confirmation, from judges at all levels to nominees to the US Sentencing Commission to all sort of other impactful governmental roles, can perhaps now be a bit more progressive.

Most fundamentally, all the agenda items that have been suggested by various reform groups (including the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force) would seem just that much more politically viable as a result of the Georgia outcomes.  I have listed here just some of my prior postings on these topics, and I suspect my future posting will necessarily incorporate heightened expectations now that Democrats seem to have even more power thanks to the Georgia run-off results.

Some prior related posts on CJUTF recommendations:

• Notable criminal justice reform recommendations from Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force 
• Can we be hopeful federal leaders will make deals to advance federal criminal justice reforms in the next Congress?
• Tomorrow can be today for some Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force criminal justice recommendations 
• Reviewing Criminal Justice Unity Task Force Recommendations: a new series to welcome a new President 
• Reviewing CJUTF Recommendations: will the Biden Administration go all in with progressive prosecutors?
• Reviewing CJUTF Recommendations: how might the Biden Administration seek to abolish the death penalty?
• Reviewing CJUTF Recommendations: when and how might Biden Administration create an independent clemency board? 

Some additional prior posts on CJ reform prospects in a Biden Administration:

• Pondering next steps in federal sentencing reform on the second anniversary of the FIRST STEP Act
• Lots of recommendations for criminal justice reform for the incoming Biden Administration 
• Exploring what Prez-elect Biden might (or might not) get done for criminal justice reforms
• "Here's One Thing Republicans and Democrats Agree on: Criminal Justice Reform"
• "What Biden’s Win Means for the Future of Criminal Justice" 

US Sentencing Commission releases more 2020 sentencing data revealing COVID's impact on federal sentencings

Regular readers know I have been keenly eager to see any US Sentencing Commission data providing a window into the COVID state of federal sentencing.  Back in October, as blogged here, the USSC released here its "3rd Quarter ... Preliminary Fiscal Year 2020 Data Through June 30, 2020."  And I just saw that yesterday, the USCC released here its 4th Quarter ... Preliminary Fiscal Year 2020 Data Through September 30, 2020." 

These new data provide another official accounting of federal sentencing outcomes that make clear that COVID concerns dramatically reduced the number of federal sentences imposed in the third and fourth quarters of Fiscal Year 2020.  Specifically, as reflected in Figure 2, it appears that the previous three quarters averaged roughly 20,000 federal sentencings, whereas the quarter ending in June 2020 saw only around 12,000 federal sentences imposed and the quarter ending in September 2020 had about 13,000 sentencings. 

Digging into these numbers, Figure 2 also reveals that the mix of cases being sentenced changed considerably from quarter 3 to quarter 4 in 2020.  In quarter 3, all major categories of cases declined considerably in total number sentenced.  But in quarter 4, immigration cases kept declining while drug, firearm, and economic cases bounced back somewhat closer to "pre-COVID normal."  (Of course, quarter 4 ended in September 2020 before the big second wave of COVID cases; it will be interesting to see what case processing data looks like in in quarters 1 and 2 of Fiscal Year 2021.) 

Critically, the change in the caseload would seem to help explain a dramatic uptick in average sentence imposed during the last quarter of FY 2020.  As detailed in Figure 5, average sentences pre-COVID were pretty stable, clocking in each quarter for many years between 38 and 43 months.  But in the quarter ending in June 2020, the average federal sentence averaged only roughly 30 months; but in the next quarter ending in September 2020, the average sentence jumped to nearly 48 months.  This leads me speculate that the sentencings that went forward during the early COVID period may have generally been the less serious cases; into the late summer, it would appear, more serious cases moved forward to sentencing despite COVID concerns.  In addition, because immigration cases typically have lower sentences than drug, firearm, and economic cases, the average sentence for all cases is likely to increase when the number of immigration cases in the pool declines so considerably.

In sum, these latest USSC data show that the total number of federal sentences imposed in the first six months of the COVID era (April to September 2020) dropped about 30% below historical normal, but the mix of cases and the length of the sentences imposed in this period varied dramatically between the two quarters of existing USSC data.  Very interesting, and now I am even more eager for the next data run and for even more intricate reporting and analysis from the US Sentencing Commission.

Notable recent reports on FIRST STEP Act implementation efforts

While there is considerable discussion of the next steps in federal criminal justice reform (including by me), there is still lots and lots of work still to do in implementing fully the FIRST STEP Act of 2018.  The reality of FIRST STEP work to do comes through over and over again in these two recent implementation reports from the Department of Justice and the Independent Review Committee:

The Attorney General's First Step Act Section 3634 Annual Report (Dec. 2020)

Report of the Independent Review Committee Report Pursuant to the Requirements of Title I Section 107(g) of the First Step Act (FSA) of 2018 (Dec. 21, 2020)

"Back to the Future with Execution Methods"

The title of this post is the title of this book chapter authored by Deborah Denno now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Despite three United States Supreme Court decisions upholding lethal injection protocols, inmates continue to challenge the method's constitutionality, and states cling to scientifically ununiformed procedures to generally ensure the death penalty's survival.  Lethal injection, however, is simply the last in a long line of disastrous execution methods.  This chapter explores the future of execution methods in light of states' efforts to repeat or borrow from the past, beginning with current changes to lethal injection and the inclusion of prior methods.  Those previous methods include electrocution, the firing squad, and the recent adoption of nitrogen hypoxia by several states — all as constitutional substitutes for lethal injection.  Older lethal injection drugs are also coming back into play, such as sodium thiopental, despite their current unavailability.

This chapter concludes that states cannot go "back to the future" to re-invent or rebrand the past's problematic execution methods.  While the future of execution methods is impossible to predict, twenty-one states have now abolished the death penalty, and the death penalty's use has remained near record lows.  Quite possibly, current execution methods may follow the same path as hanging, which has been abolished in all fifty states.  Likewise, the abolishment of the death penalty as a whole may come faster than states' abilities to change the ways they execute inmates.

Group of Virginia prosecutors urge state lawmakers to enact major criminal justice reforms

As detiled in this local article, headlined "‘Progressive prosecutors’ want Virginia to end the death penalty, cash bail and mandatory minimums," a group of elected prosecutors in the Commonwealth of Virginia are urging their state legislature to enact an array of criminal justice reforms.  Here are the basics:

A handful of self-described “progressive” Virginia prosecutors — including four from Hampton Roads — called Monday for state lawmakers to make dramatic changes to the state’s criminal justice system, including ending the death penalty, cash bail and mandatory minimum sentences and changing the “three strikes” law.

In a letter Monday to state leaders, the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice group said the changes would “help keep our communities safe while producing more equitable outcomes in our courts.”

The group of 12 prosecutors includes the elected commonwealth’s attorneys from Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk and Portsmouth.  The prosecutors come from cities and counties that make up more than 40% of the state’s population, according to the group.

The changes are likely to meet resistance from other prosecutors and from at least some Republicans in the legislature. Though Democrats now control both chambers of the General Assembly for the first time in a generation, some legislation backed by liberals has met resistance from more moderate members of the party.

The prosecutors want legislation that would allow certain criminal records to be expunged automatically — and for free — after people keep a clean record for a certain amount of time....

The prosecutors are also asking for:

• Ending mandatory minimum sentences, which the prosecutors said lead to “irrationally lengthy” sentences that “fuel mass incarceration while exacerbating … racial and socioeconomic inequities.”
• Eliminating cash bail. The prosecutors said cash bail creates a two-tiered justice system, “one for the rich and one for everyone else,” and the impacts of not being able to post bail disproportionately affect people of color.
• Abolishing the death penalty.
• Changing an aspect of the “three strikes” law that increases a misdemeanor larceny charge to a felony if a person has a prior misdemeanor larceny conviction.

The full letter from the prosecutors can be found at this link.

"Expunging Juvenile Records: Misconceptions, Collateral Consequences, and Emerging Practices"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new document authored by Andrea Coleman and recently released by Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Here are the "Highlights" set forth in the first page of the document:

This bulletin discusses common misconceptions surrounding expungement.  It also provides information about the collateral consequences of juvenile records as well as federal, state, and local emerging practices. 

The key information and findings include the following:

• Expungement, sealing, and confidentiality are three legally distinct methods for destroying or limiting access to juvenile records.  However, these methods may permit police, courts, or the public access to juvenile records, depending on state laws.

• The public and impacted youth often erroneously believe that once police and courts expunge juvenile records they no longer exist. The handling of expunged juvenile records varies widely from state to state.

• Youth with juvenile records frequently experience collateral consequences of their arrest or adjudication, which may include difficulty accessing educational services, obtaining employment, serving in the military, and finding and maintaining housing.

• States, localities, and the federal government have implemented promising practices to decrease collateral consequences, including “ban the box” legislation and expungement clinics (Avery and Hernandez, 2018; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016).

Interesting account of folks in Washigton state having second thoughts about three-strikes sentences

This lengthy new local article, headlined "New laws lead some Washington prosecutors to rethink three-strike life sentences," is an interesting review of efforts to review extreme sentences in the Evergreen State. Here are some excerpts from the piece:

Following the law enforcement killing of George Floyd, policing has grabbed the lion’s share of attention when it comes to reforming criminal justice. Yet, statistics reveal stark racial disparities in who goes to prison, and for how long.

In Washington, there is probably no greater example than the three-strikes law approved by voters in 1993 — the nation’s first and an embodiment of the tough-on-crime era, designed to ensure “persistent offenders” would never be free to commit more crimes.  Judges are required to hand down life sentences to repeat offenders of a wide array of crimes, from murder and rape to robbery and assault, and every year, more men and women are sentenced under the law.

While a majority of three-strikes prisoners are white, ... Black people, representing about 4% of the state’s population, account for 38% of 289 current three-strikes prisoners sentenced in Washington (including eight transferred to other states), according to the most comprehensive data released to date by the Department of Corrections (DOC), provided to The Seattle Times in December.  An additional six of 16 people who died in prison while serving three-strikes sentences were Black....

Ever since three strikes was enacted, people have argued about whether those it targets deserve their fate.  And yet, it has been surprisingly hard to track what crimes they committed.  The state stopped reporting the records of three strikes prisoners after 2008 and only recently resumed.

But a Seattle Times analysis of DOC data for the 289 current three-strikes prisoners shows more than half, 155 people, received a life sentence after assault, burglary, robbery or drug-related convictions triggered the third and final strike. Some previously committed more severe crimes.  About half of current three-strikes prisoners have murder, manslaughter or sex crimes on their record.

New year round-up highlights more of the same struggles with COVID in incarceration nation

Gosh knows we all wish we could forget about COVID in this new year, and I sure wish the turn of the calendar would lead to a big turn in the stories of how the coronavirus is impacting prisons and the broader criminal justice system.  But, as this round-up of recent headlines and stories highlight, incarceration nation continues to be ravaged by COVID-19 in so many ways:

From the Anchorage Daily News, "Nearly every inmate in Alaska’s largest prison has now had COVID-19, officials say"

From the New York Times, "States Are Shutting Down Prisons as Guards are Crippled By Covid-19"

From Time, "With Over 275,000 Infections and 1,700 Deaths, COVID-19 Has Devastated the U.S. Prison and Jail Population"

From the Washington Post, "Early vaccination in prisons, a public health priority, proves politically charged"

From the Wisconsin State Journal, "‘They played with our lives’: How one Wisconsin prison failed to contain a COVID-19 outbreak"

 

From the AP, "COVID vaccine being administered at same Indiana prison where DOJ carries out executions"

From The Intercept, "How the Pandemic Exposed the Failures of Capital Punishment"

From NBC News, "Ohio inmate who survived execution attempt dies in prison of probable Covid-19"

I have broken out the "death penalty" pieces even as they highlight how the death penalty is necessarily intertwined with broader stories of incarceration.  I find the last of these pieces especially stunning as it reports that Rommel Broom, who survived a botched Ohio execution attempt way back in 2009 and had a pending US Supreme Court appeal seeking to preclude a second Ohio execution effort, could not survive the new death penalty that is COVID-19.