Source: https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2018/week41/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:18:56+00:00

Document:
As highlighted via recent posts here and here, momentum seems to be picking up again for the passage of a version of the federal FIRST STEP Act that would reform federal prison practices and tweak federal sentencing rules. Perhaps prompted by these realities, a new poll and new letter has emerged to push back on reform efforts.
But this bill is not prison reform — it’s prison release. It’s not sentencing reform — it’s sentencing reductions. Contrary to what jailbreak supporters tell you, these policies are far from popular. Proponents inadvertently acknowledge how unpopular their proposals are by disguising what they’re doing with buzzwords and abstract concepts.
Given how momentum for federal reform has built, slowly but surely, over much of 2018, I would be surprised if this new poll and letter significantly changes how important political players' are dancing with the FIRST STEP Act. But they both show that seemingly ever-growing consensus in support of federal reforms does not include everyone, and they also help highlight why even relatively modest reforms like the FIRST STEP Act can be a challenging political lift.
"The Pope and the Capital Juror"
Counterintuitively, the Pope’s recent announcement that the death penalty is impermissible in all circumstances may make death sentences easier to come by, at least in the short term. The reason for this peculiarity is the “death qualification” of capital jurors — the process of questioning prospective jurors about their views on the death penalty and removing for cause those who are “substantially impaired” in their willingness to consider imposing a death verdict.
This Essay anticipates three problematic consequences of the Pope’s declaration, given a capital punishment system that relies on death-qualified juries. First, prosecutors will likely be able to strike a greater number of death-averse jurors, thereby seating juries tilted in favor of death and obtaining death verdicts with greater ease. Second, with more believing Catholics excluded from jury service, the representativeness — and hence the legitimacy — of capital juries will suffer. Third, if the number of death verdicts rises with the ease of disqualification, one of the key “objective indicators” of “evolving standards of decency” will be skewed, registering more support for the death penalty despite — indeed, because of — societal movement against it. The potential for these unexpected consequences to flow from a major pronouncement against the death penalty highlights how death qualification shapes and distorts the practice of capital punishment in our country.
"Trump Is Mulling Candidates Who Could Replace Jeff Sessions"
President Trump is considering as many as five candidates as his new attorney general on the assumption that Jeff Sessions will leave his post later this year, according to White House officials and outside advisers.
The potential candidates include Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Transportation Department general counsel Steven Bradbury, former Attorney General Bill Barr, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and Janice Rogers Brown, a retired appeals court judge from the District of Columbia Circuit, the people said.
Haslam's temporary reprieve and the high court's decisions came after several days of rapid-fire developments put the state on the defensive and put the timing of Zagorski's execution in question. Haslam's reprieve was for 10 days, but it could take longer for a new execution date to be set by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Zagorski sued this week to force the state to use the electric chair for his execution, saying the pain of electrocution would be preferable to the controversial lethal injection. A federal judge issued an order temporarily barring the state from executing him by lethal injection while that suit is pending. The suit could be moot if the state agrees to move forward with the electric chair.
The state initially refused Zagorski's request to be executed by the electric chair, saying he was too late and hadn't given two weeks' notice. But District Judge Aleta Trauger at noon Thursday said the state could not use lethal injection until she had considered Zagorski's claim.
Zagorski, 63, faces death for the April 1983 murders of John Dale Dotson and Jimmy Porter. He shot them, slit their throats and stole their money and a truck, prosecutors say. The two men had expected to buy 100 pounds of marijuana from Zagorski.
I accordingly would grant Zagorski’s request for a stay and grant certiorari to address what renders a method of execution “available” under Glossip. Capital prisoners are not entitled to pleasant deaths under the Eighth Amendment, but they are entitled to humane deaths. The longer we stand silent amid growing evidence of inhumanity in execution methods like Tennessee’s, the longer we extend our own complicity in state-sponsored brutality. I dissent.
Set your DVR for HBO's showing of documentary "The Sentence"
Through Shank, Valdez exposes a broken justice system, one that began with the Reagan administration’s war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent cocaine and marijuana crimes were introduced as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 — an attempt by Democrats to respond to the crack cocaine epidemic following the highly politicized, fatal overdose of college basketball player Len Bias. Mandatory sentences are lengthy for drug offenses; in 2016, the average carried 7.8 years — more than double the average sentence for a drug offense without a minimum. As a result, defendants are encouraged to consider accepting a plea bargain — the option Shank rejected — to receive a lesser sentence than the minimum.
In theory, plea bargains — ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1970 — offer leniency to criminals who accept responsibility for their actions, allowing the accused and the state to avoid a time-consuming and expensive trial. In reality, defendants, even if they proclaim their innocence, are often pressured to plead guilty; go to trial, they are told, and you will likely get a much longer sentence. Such bargains have now become the norm: A 2017 New York Times investigation found that 98 percent of felony convictions occurred after a plea deal. And according to annual reports published by the Administrative Office on the U.S. Courts, total jury trials for U.S. criminal cases had dropped by roughly half between 1997, when there were 3,932 cases, and 2017, when there were 1,742.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says he will move a criminal justice reform compromise after the Nov. 6 election if it has 60 votes.
I blogged here a prior Hill article from a couple of months ago during Senate negotiations over the FIRST STEP Act which indicated that the White House back then had secured "30 to 32 ... 'yes' votes among Republican senators [and hoped] that the number of GOP supporters could eventually grow as many as 40 to 46." That article led me to speculate in August that a version of the FIRST STEP Act could perhaps garner up to 90 votes in the Senate, and I do not think this head-counting is likely to change all that dramatically after the election (though one never knows). Even if "only" 30 GOP Senators favor moving forward on the FIRST STEP Act, that will be more than enough for Senator McConnell to move ahead unless a whole lot of Democratic Senators decide they want to hold out for a more ambitious bill (which I think is unlikely).
In other words, I am starting to think that the prospect of the FIRST STEP Act becoming law before the end of the year might be pretty darn good. I am never inclined to count on Congress on get anything done, but on this front it does seem we are getting closer and closer.
In the second argument, for the consolidated cases of United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims, the question is whether burglary of “a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as ‘burglary’” under the ACCA. Kennedy apparently decides that one hour of argument about the ACCA is enough, and he slips out at the break between the two arguments.
Alito tells Erica Ross, an assistant to the solicitor general arguing that burglary of an unoccupied mobile structure should count as a strike under the ACCA, that the court has “made one royal mess” of its interpretations of the federal statute. Ross says that is something the court may need to think about in “some case,” but “I apologize … for continuing to bring us back to this case.” This simple point really tickles Justice Clarence Thomas for some reason, and he laughs heartily for several seconds.
Kavanaugh will have several extended colloquies, appearing more at ease with each one. Several times, Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford Law School, the court-appointed lawyer for the respondents in the second case, begins his answer by saying, “Well, Justice Kavanaugh, …” It is in those tiny moments that the reality sinks in that Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland is now an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I have blogged here and elsewhere about the interesting and intricate drug sentencing and prison reform initiative on the November 2018 ballot here in Ohio. Originally called the "Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Amendment," the initiative now is just known within Ohio as Issue 1. The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law has been hosting public panels about Issue 1 under the title Ballot Insights, and has created a Resources Page for Issue 1 and a Commentary Page on Issue 1.
I have not previously noted here the notable fear-mongering about Issue 1 that has emerged in recent months focused particularly on its effort to reduce drug possession offenses to misdemeanors and to allow prisoners to earn more time off their prison sentences. In late August, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote a public letter warning of “catastrophic consequences" for Ohio if Issue 1 passes, and last week Gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine began running a campaign ad involving local sheriffs stating "If you’re not scared [by Issue 1], you should be." Lots of other judges and prosecutors and law enforcement official have used similar language their advocacy against Issue 1.
The Baldwin Wallace poll, which was conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 8, shows DeWine has 39.7 percent, Cordray 37.1 percent, Libertarian Travis Irvine has 4.3 percent, Ohio Green Party candidate Constance Gadell-Newton has 3.4 percent and 15.4 percent of voters are undecided. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
Notably, the full poll results indicate women voters favor Issue 1 by a 22 point margin (49 to 27) and Democrats favor Issue 1 by a 35 point margin (57 to 22). Assuming this poll numbers are solid, this results suggest to be that Issue 1 is quickly likely to pass if it turns out that women and/or Democrats end up being those especially motivated to show up to vote this November.
Ohio voters support a constitutional amendment to reduce penalties for some drug crimes and make other criminal justice reforms, according to a new poll released on the first day of early voting.
Issue 1 backers didn’t intend for the measure to become partisan but it has become a dividing line in the race for governor. Democrat Rich Cordray supports it as a way to reduce overcrowded prisons and funnel more money toward drug addiction treatment. His Republican opponent, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, has said Issue 1 will allow drug dealers to avoid prison time and lead to more drug overdose deaths.
A punishment need not leave physical scars to be cruel and unusual. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). As far back as 1890, this Court expressed concerns about the mental anguish caused by solitary confinement. These petitions address one aspect of what a prisoner subjected to solitary confinement may experience: the denial of even a moment in daylight for months or years. Although I agree with the Court’s decision not to grant certiorari in these cases because of arguments unmade and facts underdeveloped below, I write because the issue raises deeply troubling concern.
The justices announced today that they will not hear the cases of three Colorado inmates who argue that holding them in solitary confinement, without any access to the outdoors or concerns about security, violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Two of the inmates, Jonathan Apodaca and Joshua Vigil, didn’t go outdoors for more than 11 months, while the third inmate, Donnie Lowe, didn’t have outdoor recreation for several years. Prison officials argued that they could not be sued because it was not clearly established -- the standard to overcome the general presumption that government officials are immune from lawsuits -- that their solitary-confinement policy was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, and the inmates asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed concern about holding inmates in solitary confinement before: Last year he dissented from the Supreme Court’s announcement that it would not block the execution of a Texas death-row inmate who had been held in solitary confinement for 20 years. And now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested in 2015 that extended periods of solitary confinement might violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment. But there were apparently not four votes to take up the issue now.
Twenty-seven death-row inmates claimed the execution protocol violates the Eight Amendment because midazolam, a sedative, does not counteract the burning and suffocating effects of the next two drugs: vecuronium bromide, a paralytic, and potassium chloride to stop the heart.
That burden, Bivins said, included offering a viable alternative, as laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross (2015), which unsuccessfully challenged Oklahoma’s virtually identical execution protocol.
The Tennessee inmates said at trial that the state could execute them through Tennessee’s other execution protocol: one lethal dose of pentobarbital. Texas and Georgia executed people that way this year.
But the Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed and sided with the state, which said it could not obtain pentobarbital. Many pharmaceutical companies refuse to provide the drug for executions. Bivins also ruled that the court could not “establish new law” by accepting the inmates’ argument that Tennessee secrecy laws involving death penalty protocols affected their ability to argue their case.
Tennessee is scheduled to execute Edmund Zagorski on Thursday, October 11.
[A]lthough law enforcement officials have traditionally opposed [broadened expungement and sealing laws] for an array of reasons — including accountability, a belief that records are vital to public safety, and unstinting support for crime victims — a growing number of them have begun to recognize that criminal records can be enduring obstacles to self-sufficiency and even help trap people in cycles of crime. Increasingly, they are overtly endorsing mercy through record suppression.
But there is still a national patchwork of policies and terminologies, from destroying records to sealing them to simply noting that a conviction is effectively vacated. States have imposed various waiting periods, conditions and fees. Some places have made their processes deliberately simple, while others have complicated approaches that may require legal assistance or court hearings.
The proliferation of new laws, and newfound enthusiasm on the part of some prosecutors, has hardly erased all doubts about the wisdom of suppressing records. Many prosecutors, especially in rural areas, remain skeptical of any action to show mercy for a person’s past, and some judges engage in measured resistance, holding hearings more to complain about an expungement law than to weigh an application’s merits. “You have prosecutors and judges who just think it’s wrong: ‘You’ve caused trouble in this county, you’re a wrongdoer and you shouldn’t get a blank slate,’” said Bernice Corley, the executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council.
But Margaret Love, the executive director of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center and a former United States pardon attorney, said that clemency and expungements are part of the criminal justice process for a reason. “It ought to be something that prosecutors welcome and use to their advantage to create criminal justice success stories, to advertise criminal justice success stories,” she said.
The nuanced approach in Indiana, where officials hoped that expungements would improve people’s job prospects, is increasingly seen as a model. Under its so-called Second Chance law, the state has a tiered system in which the offense, and the outcome of the case, determines the waiting period and the exact relief. Indiana does not destroy records, but can limit access to them and mark them as expunged, and crime victims are permitted to express their views before any decision is made. “Indiana should be the worst place in America to commit a serious crime and the best place, once you’ve done your time, to get a second chance,” Gov. Mike Pence, now the vice president, said when he signed the records measure into law in 2013.
I am glad to see this topic garner the attention of the Times, though I am a bit disappointed not to see any mention of the particularly notable marijuana-reform developments on this front. Specifically, as I discussed briefly in this recent paper for the Federal Sentencing Reporter, a number of prosecutors in California began taking proactive steps to clear prior marijuana convictions after the state enacted marijuana legalization in 2016.
Stokeling Issue: Whether a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), when the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
Stitt Issue: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Behind most incarcerated individuals is a family that is critical to encouraging positive change on the inside and supporting them as they prepare for life on the outside. Despite this, government policies and family circumstances often impede the ability of families to stay connected during incarceration. However, changes to government policies, community-based partnerships and the expansion of family-oriented programming can help families overcome these obstacles, with great benefit both to individuals and to society as a whole.
d. ordering fines to be paid out of the insurance fund (the robot equivalent of a “fine”).
In addition, the unlawful incident can be used to design a training module to teach other smart robots the correct course of action in that scenario.
You be the Illinois judge: what sentence for Jason Van Dyke after second-degree murder conviction in slaying of Laquan McDonald?
Jurors convicted Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke for murder and aggravated battery in the slaying Laquan McDonald, the black teenager who was shot 16 times as he walked away carrying a knife on Oct. 20, 2014. But a legal expert explained that the 40-year-old Van Dyke is likely looking at less than 10 years in prison for killing the teen rather than many decades because jurors opted to convict him of second- and not first-degree murder.
After less than two full days deliberating on three weeks of testimony, jurors returned Friday with 17 guilty verdicts and one acquittal. By far the most serious charge Van Dyke faced originally was first-degree murder. But Judge Vincent Gaughan told jurors before they started deliberations that they had the option of replacing first-degree murder with second-degree murder.
First-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. And with enhancements for having used a gun, Van Dyke would have faced a mandatory minimum of 45 years, according to Chicago defense attorney Steve Greenberg, who has defended clients at more than 100 murder trials. Such a sentence, at Van Dyke's age, could have amounted to life. The punishment for second-degree murder is no less than four years but no more than 20 years behind bars.
Each count of aggravated battery carries a mandatory minimum six years and a maximum of 30 years in prison. If Van Dyke had to serve six for each of the 16 counts — and do so one sentence after another - that would add up to 96 years. But Greenberg said judges almost always order defendants to serve such sentences simultaneously. So, if Van Dyke gets the minimum for each count, he'd serve six years for all the battery convictions.
For a man convicted with no previous criminal record, Greenberg said the mandatory minimum is his best guess for a sentence handed down on Van Dyke. "I would be shocked if he got a day over the four or six years," Greenberg said.
Greenberg said prison conditions for an officer, like Van Dyke, could be rougher than for average convicts. As a white officer convicted of killing a young African-American, prison authorities are likely to conclude he has to be kept away from other prisoners for his own safety. "He will probably be in a cell by himself," Greenberg said. "It will be very hard time." That may have already started. At prosecutors' request, Van Dyke's bond was revoked minutes after the verdicts were announced and Judge Gaughan ordered he be held in jail pending sentencing. He stood up from the defense table, then put his arms behind his back as two deputies led him away.
I am not an expert on Illinois sentencing law, but presuming this article has the law corrected, I am struck that the mandatory minimum prison term for second-degree murder in the state is 50% less than mandatory minimum for aggravated battery with a firearm. It is also notable and telling that if the sentencing judge here were permitted and inclined to run the various sentences consecutively rather than concurrently, the defendant here would be facing 100 years in prison as the applicable mandatory minimum. But if the crimes are found to be "merged" under Illinois law, four years could become the minimum and 20 years the max.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 924
 § 924