« A new (sub)space for more sentencing commentary from more voices | Main | CCJ launches new nonpartisan national panel titled "Women’s Justice Commission" »
July 8, 2024
Could families of crash victims disrupt the latest plea deal Boeing has accepted from the feds?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by some notable new corporate news that is also a federal sentencing story. This AP piece, headlined "Boeing accepts a plea deal to avoid a criminal trial over 737 Max crashes, Justice Department says," provides the basics:
Boeing will plead guilty to a criminal fraud charge stemming from two crashes of 737 Max jetliners that killed 346 people, the Justice Department said late Sunday, after the government determined the company violated an agreement that had protected it from prosecution for more than three years.
Federal prosecutors gave Boeing the choice last week of entering a guilty plea and paying a fine as part of its sentence or facing a trial on the felony criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors accused the American aerospace giant of deceiving regulators who approved the airplane and pilot-training requirements for it.
The plea deal, which still must receive the approval of a federal judge to take effect, calls for Boeing to pay an additional $243.6 million fine. That was the same amount it paid under the 2021 settlement that the Justice Department said the company breached. An independent monitor would be named to oversee Boeing’s safety and quality procedures for three years. The deal also requires Boeing to invest at least $455 million in its compliance and safety programs.
The plea deal covers only wrongdoing by Boeing before the crashes in Indonesia and in Ethiopia, which killed all 346 passengers and crew members aboard two new Max jets. It does not give Boeing immunity for other incidents, including a panel that blew off a Max jetliner during an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon in January, a Justice Department official said. The deal also does not cover any current or former Boeing officials, only the corporation. In a statement, Boeing confirmed it had reached the deal with the Justice Department but had no further comment.
In a filing Sunday night, the Justice Department said it expected to submit the written plea agreement with a U.S. District Court in Texas by July 19. Lawyers for some of the relatives of those who died in the two crashes have said they will ask the judge to reject the agreement. “This sweetheart deal fails to recognize that because of Boeing’s conspiracy, 346 people died. Through crafty lawyering between Boeing and DOJ, the deadly consequences of Boeing’s crime are being hidden,” said Paul Cassell, a lawyer for some of the families.
Federal prosecutors alleged Boeing committed conspiracy to defraud the government by misleading regulators about a flight-control system that was implicated in the crashes, which took place than less five months apart. As part of the January 2021 settlement, the Justice Department said it would not prosecute Boeing on the charge if the company complied with certain conditions for three years. Prosecutors last month alleged Boeing had breached the terms of that agreement.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who has overseen the case from the beginning, has criticized what he called “Boeing’s egregious criminal conduct.” O’Connor could accept the plea and the sentence that prosecutors offered with it or he could reject the agreement, likely leading to new negotiations between the Justice Department and Boeing.
I know very little about corporate criminal prosecutions or about the detailed specifics of this case. But I know that former federal judge Paul Cassell is a tireless advocate for crime victims, and this new Reuters commentary, headlined "Boeing 737 MAX crash victims’ families could disrupt new plea deal with US," provides a lot of background on the possibility of the victims' families disrupting this deal. It closes this way:
Crucially, the plea agreement — unlike Boeing’s deferred prosecution agreement — must be approved by O’Connor. That requirement, said family members’ lawyer Cassell, give his clients a shot at blocking the deal. “The standard that a judge applies when reviewing a plea deal is more rigorous than it is for a deferred prosecution agreement,” said Cassell. “Make no mistake: Judge O’Connor has the authority to reject the plea agreement.”
The Justice Department is already bracing for the families’ opposition. Prosecutors told O’Connor that they’d demanded additional concessions from Boeing after meeting several times with family members and their counsel, but that some family members continued to oppose the deal. (The Justice Department did not say how many families are opposed.) The government asked the judge to postpone a hearing to give both sides time to submit briefs on the proposed deal and to allow family members to make travel plans to attend a hearing in person.
Cassell, a retired federal judge, told me that the crash victims’ families have already succeeded in “shaking up business as usual in the criminal division of the Justice Department.” Now we’ll see if his clients and other families can use their leverage to force additional relief from Boeing.
July 8, 2024 at 07:05 PM | Permalink
Comments
On a smaller scale, I have seen a Judge reject a plea bargain in a case where the Commonwealth's Attorney had promised a sexually abusive middle school teacher [a woman who had abused a teen beginning at 13 years old] that she wouldn't spend any time in jail if she cooperated in the prosecution of the male teacher who had sexually abused the same student in high school. She had already performed her part of the plea deal and had even testified against him at his trial, where he was convicted and sentenced to the jury's recommendation of 6 years in prison. When the Commonwealth offered the plea deal for the woman, he rejected it because he said that he felt that her conduct required some jail time. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony indictment against the woman and charged her only with misdemeanors under a Criminal Information. Under Kentucky law, the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is 12 months in jail. They were effectively restricting the Judge's discretion on how much time the defendant could spend in jail. The ultimate deal was that the woman would spend 1 week in jail and 6 months of home confinement, with the remainder of 12 months on probation. Before the Judge accepted the plea, he called the victim to the bench and asked her whether the plea deal was sufficient for her. She responded that it was, that those issues had haunted her life for 40 years, and she needed to close the door and put them behind her. She also obtained and collected a $3.7 million judgment against the Fayette County Board of Education, whose costs of defense and liability were covered under an old insurance policy. The Board of education actually paid only their $1,500 deductible on the insurance policy. Boeing could have real problems since more than 340 people are dead due to their crimes.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jul 9, 2024 3:11:25 AM
Maybe Michael Luttig should have spent more time looking into quality control/assurance instead of writing op-Ed’s about politics.
Posted by: Really? | Jul 10, 2024 8:48:05 AM
The train is looking better and better.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 10, 2024 9:12:15 AM
Really? Michael Luttig left the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and became General Counsel of Boeing in 2006 [saying that he needed to earn more money than his Judgeship paid, so that he could pay for his children's college educations]. Judge Luttig retired from Boeing in 2019, so he hasn't been with the company for about 5 years now. He left before all the drama began and the criminal charges were filed.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jul 10, 2024 12:06:25 PM
Jim
You think these problems developed overnight?
Posted by: Really? | Jul 10, 2024 2:03:09 PM