Opinion ID: 791972
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fairness, Integrity, and Public Reputation of Judicial Proceedings.

Text: 35 Though a sentencing judge retains discretion ... he must demonstrate that he has thoughtfully discharged his statutory obligation [under § 3553(c)], with a degree of care appropriate to the severity of the punishment ultimately selected. United States v. Chartier, 933 F.2d 111, 117 (2d Cir.1991). In thus enabl[ing] the public to learn why [the] defendant received a particular sentence, United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 206 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting Molina, 356 F.3d at 277), section 3553(c) has implications beyond the immediate rights of criminal defendants or the government, or the effective conduct of particular criminal proceedings. It tends to instill understanding of, trust in, and respect for the court and its proceedings on the part both of those who are themselves parties to the proceeding and those who are not. To paraphrase Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980), people in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they have insufficient information to understand. When a statement of reasons is given, there is at least an opportunity for understanding both the system in general and its workings in the particular case. We have held, for similar reasons, that the public has a presumptive right of access to sentencing proceedings. Alcantara, 396 F.3d at 196. The requirement that a statement of reasons be given is hardly, as the government would have it, a mere formalism. See Gov't Br. at 15-16 n. 36 We conclude, then, that a sentencing court's failure to comply with § 3553(c)(2) affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. 37