Opinion ID: 151874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Institutional Harm

Text: The court's willingness to resentence does immense and immeasurable institutional damage. `It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.' Gall, 552 U.S. at 52, 128 S.Ct. at 598 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2053, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). The district court is unquestionably the best judicial actor to conduct this unique study and to undertake the open-ended and fact-heavy § 3553(a) inquiry. See, e.g., Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52, 128 S.Ct. at 597-98 (explaining that the district court is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case because it looks the defendant and witnesses in the eye, gains insights not conveyed by the cold record, and has extensive sentencing experience) (quotation omitted). The district court's effective use of its expertise, however, turns on the active participation of the lawyersthe prosecutors and defense counselin the adversary proceeding envisioned by Rita and Gall and fleshed out by my opinion today. Their professionalism is vital to the sentencing process. Indeed, if sentences are to inspire the confidence of the defendant and the public, the sentencing hearing in the district court must be the main event, rather than a tryout on the road for the real forum that will determine the sentence. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 96, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2508, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Today's decision sends the unmistakable message that the district court is nothing but a tryout on the road. This diminishes the district courts' institutional role in the eyes of the public and the legal profession because it de facto strips the district courts of their Congressionally given authority. [99] If the district court procedure is merely a tryout, a busy district court may be inclined to pay mere lip service to its § 3553(a) duty and simply impose a Guidelines sentence; [100] after all, its sentence would only be tentative, subject to second-guessing on appeal. And even if the district court wanted to do its duty, the prosecutor may not present the government's best case to the district courtbetter to wait and see what sentence the court imposes before expending the government's resources. [101] The court's willingness to ignore time-honored contemporaneous objection and procedural default rules diminishes the status of the district courts for another reason. [102] These rules are designed to force the parties to give the district court everything it needs to make sound decisions and the first chance to fix any errors. This, in turn, leads to an enhanced quality of judicial decision making, preserves the sentence's finality, and may prevent unnecessary appeals. The court's message to the prosecutors in this circuit is: don't bother, there is no need to try to put the district court in the best position to make decisions. Sadly, our approach today diminishes the district court's role for no good reason. It transfers sentencing authority from district judges to the courts of appeals, which lack the district judges' experience and expertise in imposing criminal sentences. As the length of today's opinion shows, even attempting to duplicate the district judge's § 3533(a) task requires a huge investment of this court's resources. Despite the huge investment, there is no real return: due to our lack of experience and expertise, we are poorly suited to the job and will not infrequently reach a wrong result. Moreover, our fact-intensive resentencing decisions will be incapable of generalization and will hinder our ability to establish clear guidance for the district courts of our circuit. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. at 98-99, 116 S.Ct. at 2046-47; see also Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 65-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 1281, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001) (explaining that if the question presented grows out of, and is bounded by, case-specific detailed factual circumstances, then the value of appellate court precedent is limited). Lastly, as we fritter away our resources on sentencing appeals, other litigants in the appellate queue will suffer. This court is not well-suited to sentence offenders for another and even more important reason. The Supreme Court has made abundantly clear the crucial role that process plays in sentencing. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. at 596-97. The public's and the defendant's confidence in the justice of a sentence turn on how the sentencer arrived at it. Given the strictures of appellate review, it is impossible for us to accord a defendant the process that is due. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim P. 32(i). When this court resentences a defendant, it deprives him of a meaningful hearing in which he has the right to address a judge who can look him in the eye before deciding his fate. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(i)(4)(A)(2)(ii). Because the defendant's first notice of the reasons for the resentence and its factual bases is provided by this court's opinion imposing the sentence, [103] he is deprived of the right to object to the reasons and factual bases. [104] And, crucially, it deprives him of a right to appeal. Such treatment of a litigant not only breeds disrespect for the rule of law, but also raises serious due process concerns. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1207, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (plurality opinion) (concluding that the due process clause was violated when the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain). In sum, when placed on a balance sheet, the grave institutional harm caused by the court's approach significantly outweighs any benefit the approach might yield. [105] Resentencing defendants on appeal diminishes the role of the district court in the eyes of the legal profession, and it diminishes the public's confidence in the district courts as an institution for administering criminal justice. It misallocates and gobbles up judicial resources. [106] None of this is necessary. [107] If a sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion, we should simply say so and return the case to the district court, the appropriate forum for the main event. V. For the foregoing reasons, I would vacate Irey's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.