Opinion ID: 3037227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Council

Text: Oregon has a procedure — unusual to us but evidently long established there — of regular sentencing council meetings for the district judges. According to a 1981 Federal Judicial Center study, sentencing councils of this sort were a reform implemented in four districts, intended to reduce sentencing disparity in that pre-guidelines period.6 But the study’s findings showed that the councils increased disparity in about as many categories as they reduced it, and mostly did not affect disparity at all.7 Evidently sentencing councils are still used, or at least were when Brigham was sentenced. They were no secret. At Brigham’s sentencing hearing, the judge referred to the discus- sions that he had participated in regarding Brigham’s case at the sentencing council. For example, when Brigham’s lawyer made a point regarding calculation of loss, the district judge described the discussion he had participated in at the sentencing council regarding the cases that bore on the issue: Well, I appreciate that. And this matter was dis- cussed at sentencing council this morning, and it would appear to a number of us that the case cited by Mr. Ungar, the Shaw case, would lead one to this finding and not the McCormick case that the government relies upon, and it only slightly changes the ultimate sentencing range. And, in fact, it probably did not end up making a substantial difference in the actual sentence that the court imposes. Brigham did not object to the judge’s participation in the sentencing council before the sentencing, nor did he object during sentencing, even after the judge expressly described 6 See The Effects of Sentencing Councils on Sentencing Disparity at v, (Federal Judicial Center 1981). 7 See id. at 1. UNITED STATES v. BRIGHAM 5075 the council’s participation in his case. It was only after Brigham had been sentenced to a disappointing 37 months that he raised any issue regarding the sentencing council. During a motion for release pending appeal, Brigham argued that his appeal was likely to succeed because the sentencing judge had participated in a sentencing council. The judge expressed his concern that Brigham had not previously objected and described how the Oregon sentencing council works: Well, as noted by the government at the time of the sentencing, there was no objection to the fact that this district still has what we still call a sentencing council. And, had there been objection, the court could easily have called witnesses to detail exactly how the sentencing council operates. It’s just a matter of having the benefit of other judicial interpretations of the sentencing guidelines that aids the sentencing court insofar as the appropriate sentence. Sentencing council recommendations are not binding upon the sentencing judge in any respect, and oftentimes I’ve read the newspaper following a sentencing council and said gees, did we discuss that case or not, because the sentencing judge has total discretion to totally ignore or follow the recommendations. It just depends on what he or she believes is the appropriate sentence to impose. Oftentimes the guidelines issues are such that other judges over the course of their experience have dealt with that particular guideline before and could give a newer judge assistance in making the appropriate disposition. On appeal, Brigham argues that the sentencing council is a prohibited ex parte communication and that its use amounts to plain error under a Seventh Circuit case, United States v. Spudic.8 8 United States v. Spudic, 795 F.2d 1334 (7th Cir. 1986). 5076 UNITED STATES v. BRIGHAM None of the authorities discussed by Brigham or by the concurrence establish whether it is error to use the sort of sentencing councils used in Oregon. The same phrase, “sentencing council,” meant something altogether different in Spudic. There, it was a meeting of the judge with “a number of proba- tion officers,”9 and the Seventh Circuit disapproved of the practice.10 Some of the reasons the Spudic court disapproved of the sentencing council in that case would be relevant to the Oregon sentencing council. Spudic says that the sentencing judge might be tempted to abide by the institutional consensus rather than his own judgment, and that the impact of the incourt presentations might be unduly minimized.11 But other reasons undergirding Spudic are irrelevant, such as a concern that a probation officer who did not prepare the presentence report might tell the judge something adverse about the defen- dant that the defendant would never get a chance to challenge.12 Probation officers do not participate in the Oregon sentencing council. Spudic does not even establish that a sentencing council consisting of district judges would be error in the Sev- enth Circuit. It is true that the views of other judges might carry more weight than those of probation officers. On the other hand, a judge might have a concern with staff morale if he disregarded the views of a large group of probation officers, but not if he disregarded the views of other judges. [1] The Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Johnson13 that an ex parte meeting of the sentencing judge with the two probation officers who prepared the presentence report was unobjectionable. We have also had some related cases. In United States v. Davis, we held that it was “entirely proper” for a judge to discuss the presentence report and sentence with 9 Id. at 1336. 10 See id. at 1343-44. 11 See id. at 1343. 12 See id. 13 United States v. Johnson, 935 F.2d 47, 51-52 (4th Cir. 1991). UNITED STATES v. BRIGHAM 5077 the probation officer who prepared the report outside the defendant’s presence.14 In United States v. Gonzales, the most relevant of the cases cited by the parties, the defendant brought a Due Process challenge against the use of the Oregon sentencing council and a discussion between the sentencing judge and the probation officer who prepared the presentence report.15 The defendant in Gonzales sought an evidentiary hearing to find out what was said about his case