Category: Sentencing

An Ethically Challenged Sentencing Commission Nominee

by · May 11, 2022 3:04 pm

The President today nominated a full slate of attorneys and judges for the US Sentencing Commission.  The majority are Democrats, as is the President’s prerogative.  I don’t know any of them, but I am familiar with the work on one of them, former US District Judge John Gleeson.  Gleeson will be familiar to most readers as the amicus appointed by the district court in the infamous Michael Flynn prosecution, to argue in support of the court’s continuing with the prosecution notwithstanding the Justice Department’s wish to end the case on account of questionable (at best) prosecutorial behavior.

But there is another aspect of Gleeson’s behavior, undertaken while he was on the bench, that calls into question his ethical fitness.  I wrote about this before, and regrettably, it is newly relevant today.

Continue reading . . .

Worry About Crime in U.S. at Highest Level Since 2016

by · Apr 7, 2022 9:29 am

Megan Brenan has this report for Gallup with the above title:

Americans’ concern about crime and violence in the U.S. has edged up in the past year, and for the first time since 2016, a majority (53%) say they personally worry a “great deal” about crime. Another 27% report they worry a “fair amount,” which places the issue near the top of the list of 14 national concerns — behind only inflation and the economy, and on par with hunger and homelessness.

Crime, policy, and politics have gone in a depressingly predictable cycle. The American people were pitched a bill of goods that going soft on crime could be done without increasing crime, and perhaps even lower it. Fueled by billionaire-funded campaigns and viral videos, they bought it, having forgotten the lessons of the last third of the twentieth century. Continue reading . . .

Defining “Occasion” — The Finale

by · Mar 7, 2022 8:05 am

Over a year ago, I noted in this post that the U.S. Supreme Court had taken up the case of Wooden v. United States to resolve what amounts to separate “occasions” in the Armed Career Criminal Act. There is widespread agreement that repeat offenders should be dealt with more severely than one-timers, but the distinction between repeating and committing multiple crimes in one incident sometimes makes for difficult line-drawing. I noted in the previous post:

Breaking into 10 different units at a self-storage place is 10 counts of burglary under Georgia law. That seems reasonable, given 10 separate breakings and 10 separate entries to steal the possessions of 10 separate victims. But if they are done one after another is that 10 different occasions for the purpose of the recidivist statute? That seems like a stretch.

Not surprisingly, the Court’s decision today was unanimous in the judgment that counting 10 occasions for the purpose of the ACCA was an overreach. Continue reading . . .

Early Test for New Virginia Gov. on Sentencing Reform

by · Jan 17, 2022 11:17 am

Virginia’s new Governor, Glen Youngkin, was sworn in Saturday and immediately announced eleven executive orders to fulfill promises he made during his campaign last year.  One of them was to terminate the members of the criminal-coddling state Parole Board.  Youngkin also appointed former U.S. Attorney Richard Cullen as Counselor to the Governor.  Cullen was Vice-Chairman on a 1994 commission under Governor Richard Allen which recommended the elimination of parole and tougher sentencing.  Governor Youngkin’s commitment to reducing crime will face an early test from two bills introduced in Virginia’s divided legislature last week.  Hans Bader of Liberty Unyielding  reports that HB 906 and SB 378 would create the “second look” law, giving judges the authority to cut a violent criminal’s sentence by 10 to 15 years, even for life-sentenced murderers.

Continue reading . . .

Rape? Hey, Stuff Happens.

by · Nov 18, 2021 3:00 pm

The New York Times, of all things, has a story today about the violent rape of a young teenage girl (the defendant did not contest it and pleaded guilty), followed by a sentence of zero imprisonment.  But not to worry  —  the judge determined that incarceration for Mr. Nicey was “not appropriate” after “praying” about it.

I am not making this up.  Indeed, I don’t have to make it up, since it has a good deal in common with the notorious Stanford rape case about which that same NYT was kind enough to print my op-ed, see here.  Still, in the Stanford case, at least the rapist got a token jail sentence.  I guess New York is more “enlightened.”  Criminal justice reform, dontcha know.

Continue reading . . .

California Insists That Victim Suffering Must Continue Decades After The Crime

by · Nov 4, 2021 1:14 pm

Guest Post by David Boyd

Our California Constitution guarantees victims of crimes the following right (among others): “To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.” In explaining the need for this right, our constitution says, “Victims of crime are entitled to finality in their criminal cases. Lengthy appeals and other post-judgment proceedings that challenge criminal convictions, frequent and difficult parole hearings that threaten to release criminal offenders, and the ongoing threat that the sentences of criminal wrongdoers will be reduced, prolong the suffering of crime victims for many years after the crimes themselves have been perpetrated. This prolonged suffering of crime victims and their families must come to an end.”

This right, and its foundational basis, is being routinely violated in its spirit if not its letter. Within the last several years our Legislature as well as our Governor through the secretary of the Department of Corrections has ignored our constitution. Instead of passing laws preserving finality, they have instead created new laws and programs to reopen tens of thousands of cases statewide, thus creating the very suffering that that the constitution directs must end. Continue reading . . .

Newsom Signs Bills Reducing Sentences

by · Oct 12, 2021 2:26 pm

Doubling down on his commitment to empty out California’s prisons, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills last Friday to block sentence increases for habitual felons and drug dealers.  Patrick McGreevy of the Los Angeles Times reports that Newsom signed SB 81, introduced by Alameda County Democrat Nancy Skinner, to require that judges dismiss sentence increases (called enhancements) for using a gun in a crime or due to prior convictions.   According to Skinner eliminating these enhancements would reduce the “discriminatory racial impact” on minority criminals.  The fact that blacks commit 7 times as many felonies as whites and 93% of their victims are other blacks is not of importance.

Continue reading . . .

The Current Status of The People v. Daniel William Marsh

by · Aug 20, 2021 4:18 pm

In April of 2013, Daniel Marsh was 15 years old when he broke into Chip Northup and Claudia Maupin‘s condominium in the middle of the night and heinously murdered them as they slept.  His case was directly filed in adult criminal court and, in 2014, he was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances.  The trial court imposed a sentence of 52 years to life.  The Northup and Maupin families found relief in the verdict and sentence and believed Marsh would be locked up for a very long time.  Unfortunately, their relief was short lived and their fight for justice had just begun.  Continue reading . . .

Early Releases, Crime, and Evidence

by · Aug 13, 2021 3:16 pm

In May, the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation put into effect regulations that greatly increased the credits that violent criminals can earn to shorten their sentences. Sam Stanton of the Sacramento Bee has this article on a lawsuit by 45 district attorneys (out of 58 in the state) to invalidate these regulations.

I will have more to say about this suit later, but right now I want to focus on a statement by a supporter of the regulations that illustrates the kind of pseudoscientific posturing that is rampant in policy debates today. Continue reading . . .