Opinion ID: 2975481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of the Family Members Letters

Text: The district court did not inappropriately consider the letters sent by the members of Brown Sr.’s family. Brown Sr. argues that the letters were inappropriate. The district court, however, noted at the sentencing hearing that the allegations in the letters were insufficiently reliable and thus that it was not taking them into account. Brown Sr.’s, argument, therefore, centers on the statement made by the district court that, “there is some fire where there’s some smoke.” JA at 102. The full statement, however, specifically stated that the court was not considering those factors: The court also wants to note that . . . regardless of the truth of the allegations of the close family members . . . who make outrageous accusations against [ ] Brown [Sr.] – and I’m not sentencing him for those accusations because I don’t know if they are true or not – but the very fact that someone has done enough to their family to cause letters of that sort to be written and to have one’s own children begging the court to sentence this man to as much time as the court possibly can, I have never had that before, and it says to me that there is some fire where there’s smoke because that is truly unusual. JA at 102 (emphasis added). Therefore, the court specifically stated that it was not considering the factual allegations made in the letters, but only the level of animosity that Brown’s crimes had generated among his family members. Indeed, it is questionable whether the court placed any weight on the letters or was merely expressing its belief (which it did not take into account) that Brown Sr. 6 had done some of the alleged acts. In addition, the district court made this statement at the end of the sentencing hearing, which was significantly after it imposed the sentence. In context, this statement was a last admonishment to Brown Sr. that he should attempt to repair his relationship with his family, rather than a factor the court considered in determining his sentence. In addition, Brown Sr. concedes that it was appropriate for the district court to consider his son’s victim impact statement. Brown Sr. Br. at 14, 17; see also United States v. Blake, 89 F. Supp. 2d 328, 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (“While a victim’s reactions are not controlling, they are something that a judge must and should consider before imposing a sentence.”). Many of the allegations made in the other letters appear in Brown Jr.’s victim impact statement. Therefore, while the question is not properly presented, it is unclear whether the use of these additional statements would have been improper. Furthermore, the district court provided compelling reasons for the sentence it imposed. It indicated that Brown Sr. needed medical treatment including psychological and drug counseling for his depression, suicidal tendencies, and drug problem. It indicated that the nature of the victim and the duration of the crime implicated three of the § 3553(a) factors; the seriousness of the offense and the need for a just punishment, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to protect the public. It also indicated that the Guidelines did not adequately address the impact on the victim – damage to credit rating, etc. – in this case. Therefore, while the district court might not have been correct to consider the uncharged offense based on unreliable evidence, there is no clear indication that it did so, and it provided sufficient compelling reasons, supported by the pleaded conduct, to justify the sentence it imposed. Defendant’s sentence is clearly reasonable. 7