Opinion ID: 787685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction Relating to Authority of District Court to Sentence Cooperating Witness

Text: 90 Because we are remanding for a new trial with respect to certain of the counts charged in the indictment, we briefly comment on one of the challenges raised by Polito and Fortunato to the District Court's jury instructions, as this issue may arise again in the event of a retrial. 22 Specifically, the defendants argue that the District Court erred in instructing the jury that the court had the authority to sentence cooperating witnesses below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without a § 5K1.1 letter from the Government. 91 The District Court instructed the jury that the final determination as to the sentence to be imposed rests with the Court, whether or not ... a motion ha[d] been made pursuant to [§] 5K1.1 of the [G]uidelines. Specifically, the charge read, in relevant part: 92 [Section 5K1.1] provides that upon a motion by the [G]overnment... stating that a defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has been charged with a crime, the court may depart from the [G]uidelines and sentence that person without regard to what the [G]uidelines may require. 93 There are two factors to be borne in mind in that regard. First, only the [G]overnment can make such a motion. It cannot be compelled to do so; and ... [s]econd, the court has complete discretion as to whether it will or will not grant that motion, and the court is free, in any event, to impose a sentence within the [G]uidelines as it deems appropriate. 94 In short, the final determination as to the sentence to be imposed rests with the Court, whether or not ... a motion has been made pursuant to [§] 5K1.1 of the [G]uidelines. 95 The clear implication of this instruction was that the District Court had the power to sentence a cooperating witness to less than life imprisonment, even without a § 5K1.1 motion from the Government. 23 96 Our case law is clear, however, that even when a witness has, in fact, cooperated with the prosecution, a district court is not authorized to depart below a statutory mandatory minimum sentence unless the Government has moved for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Harrison, 241 F.3d 289, 294 (2d Cir.2001); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The statutory mandatory minimum sentence for murder in this case was life imprisonment (or death). See 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). Thus, the District Court should not have instructed the jury that it had the authority to depart downward from life imprisonment in the absence of a § 5K1.1 letter from the Government. See United States v. James, 239 F.3d 120, 126-27 (2d Cir.2000). 97