us v. jane doe

7/28/2019 US v. Jane Doe

1/177

1 See i nf r a not e 2.

2 A pseudonym. I t wi l l become appar ent bel ow why apseudonym i s necessary.

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTDI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA )

)v. ) CRI MI NAL ACTI ON NO.

) 02- 10054- WGYRI CHARD GREEN, )

Def endant )______________________________)

)UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA )


) 01- 10469- WGYWI LLI AM OLI VERO )J ASON PACHECO, )

Def endants ))

)

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA ))

v. ) CRI MI NAL ACTI ON NO.) 99- 10066- WGY

EDWARD K. MI LLS, )Def endant )

______________________________)

)UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA )


) **- *****- WGY1

J ANE DOE, 2 )Def endant )

______________________________)

SENTENCI NG MEMORANDA

Case 1:01-cr-10469-GAO Document 734 Filed 06/18/04 Page 1 of 177


2/177

3 Let t er t o Bi shop Mandel l Cr ei ght on ( Apr . 5, 1887) , quot edi n J . Bar t l et t , Fami l i ar Quot at i ons 750 ( 14t h ed. 1968) .

4 As quoted i n I an J ames, Guant anamo Tr i bunal s Quest i oned,The Bost on Gl obe, Feb. 2, 2004.

2

YOUNG, C. J . J une 18, 2004

Power t ends t o cor r upt and absol ut e power cor r upt sabsol ut el y.

Lord Act on3

I f you put al l t he power s t o pr osecut e, t r y, andexecut e a sent ence i n one per son s hands, t hat i s t heabsol ut e ant i t hesi s of t he checks and bal ances i n t hesyst em of gover nment t hat we have.

Lt . Cmdr . Char l es Swi f t , U. S. Navy4

I NTRODUCTI ON

Her e s a not - so- hypot het i cal conver sat i on bet ween an eager

and ent husi ast i c di st r i ct j udge and an exper i enced and r ef l ect i ve

ci r cui t j udge.

Di st r i ct J udge: What woul d you t hi nk of a syst em t hat af f or ded

t hose accused of cr i mes scr upul ousl y f ai r t r i al s

over whi ch whol l y i ndependent j udges pr esi de,

but whi ch t ur ns t hose convi ct ed over t o t he

pr osecut ors f or such puni shment as t hey may

determi ne?

Ci r cui t J udge: Ut t er l y unf ai r , of cour se. That woul d be even



3/177

5

524 U. S. 721 ( 1998) . I n di ssent i n Monge, a deci si on t hatpr edated Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S. 466 ( 2000) , and Ri ng v.Ar i zona, 536 U. S. 584 ( 2002) , J ust i ce Scal i a ar gued t hat t heSupr eme Cour t s appr oach t o cr i mi nal sent enci ng woul d permi tCal i f or ni a t o r epeal al l t he cri mes i n i t s cr i mi nal code, r epl acet hem wi t h a cr i me of knowi ngl y causi ng i nj ur y t o anot her , puni shabl e by up t o 30 days i n pr i son, and per mi t a sent enci ngj udge t o i mpose an i ncr eased sent ence up t o l i f e i mpr i sonment ordeat h, based on sent enci ng enhancement s r egardi ng i ncr easi ngl evel s of mens r ea, l evel of i nj ur y, et c. , pr oved t o t he j udge bya mere pr eponderance of t he evi dence. 524 U. S. at 738- 39( Scal i a, J . di ssent i ng) . Unl i ke t he syst em t hat our hypot het i cal

di st r i ct j udge descr i bes, J ust i ce Scal i a s hypot het i cal syst emwoul d at l east r equi r e some pr oof of t he r el evant f act s bef or ei mposi ng enhanced penal t i es, and woul d l eave t he deci si on to aj udge who, even i n st at e syst ems wher e j udges ar e el ect ed or l ackt he pr ot ect i ons f r om maj or i t ar i an pr essur e t hat f eder al j udgesenj oy, has a sense of hi st or i cal r ol e and dut y t hat woul d makeher a mor e r el i abl e sent encer t han a pr osecut or .

3

mor e s i ni st er t han t he ni ght mar e hypot het i cal

r egi me that J ust i ce Scal i a descr i bed i n Monge v.

Cal i f or ni a. 5

Di st r i ct J udge: Wel l , i sn t t hi s t he syst em we have t oday under

t he so- cal l ed gui del i nes?

Ci r cui t J udge: Not at al l . As we ve been at pai ns t o poi nt out

t o you and your col l eagues, t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes - whi l e i nt r i cat e - cont r ol f eder al

sent enci ng and must be obeyed.

Di st r i ct J udge: I accept t hat . I have t o. But what about t he

gover nment ?



4/177

4

Ci r cui t J udge: Nat ur al l y t hey have t o obey t he gui del i nes.

Di st r i ct J udge: [ Per si st i ng] And i f t hey don t ?

Ci r cui t J udge: No, no, t hat way l i es t he Ser boni an Bog. I f t he

government can mani pul ate t he gui del i nes t o sui t

t hemsel ves, a def endant s const i t ut i onal

guarant ees woul dn t be wor t h much.

Di st r i ct J udge: Pr eci sel y.

That s hypot het i cal . These sent enci ng memor anda deal wi t h

f i ve cri mi nal s. Thr ee i nsi st ed on t hei r const i t ut i onal l y

guar ant eed t r i al by j ur y. The t wo ot her s pl ed gui l t y and

cooperated. The most evi l and vi ol ent i s a gang l eader who had

much i nf or mat i on t o gi ve. The l east , a woman, had l i t t l e t o gi ve

but went on cour ageousl y t o f i nger a maj or dr ug l or d. Thi s i s

real i t y.

Ri char d Gr een i s a r et ai l dr ug deal er pr eyi ng on t he

i nhabi t ant s of one of Bost on s publ i c housi ng pr oj ect s. On t wo

occasi ons he sol d smal l quant i t i es of cr ack cocai ne ( 0. 6 gr ams

and 2. 4 gr ams r espect i vel y) t o an under cover i nf ormant . The

gover nment seeks t o i mpr i son hi m f or 24 year s.



5/177

5

Wi l l i am Ol i ver o i s a New Yor k wor ker f or a massi ve dr ug

conspi r acy whose ki ngpi n ( and maj or dr ug act i vi t y) ar e l ocat ed i n

Massachuset t s. Though not hi msel f a deal er , Ol i ver o has, on

occasi on, del i ver ed ki l ogr am quant i t i es of cocai ne and associ at ed

dr ug money f or t he ki ngpi n. Ol i ver o possesses a handgun. The

ki ngpi n has been sent enced t o l i f e i mpr i sonment f or hi s of f enses.

The gover nment seeks t o i mpr i son Ol i ver o f or t wenty- f our t o

t hi r t y year s.

J ason Pacheco i s a mar i j uana deal er who knew t he ki ngpi n,

who on occassi on pur chased ki l ogr am quant i t i es of cocai ne f r om

t he ki ngpi n f or hi s own account , and who once accommodat ed t he

ki ngpi n by al l owi ng hi s gar age t o be used f or t he br i ef st or age

and t r ansshi pment of a mul t i - ki l ogr am quant i t y of cocai ne. The

gover nment seeks t o i mpr i son hi m f or t wel ve t o f i f t een year s.

Edwar d K. Mi l l s i s a mul t i pl e mur der er who l ed a vi ci ous

st r eet gang. Event ual l y appr ehended, he r ecogni zed t he j i g was

up and cooper at ed wi t h aut hor i t i es. A gang l eader hi msel f , he

had much i nf or mat i on t o gi ve and hi s di scl osures have l ed t o the

convi ct i on of anot her mur der er and t he f r eei ng of an i ndi vi dual

wr ongf ul l y convi ct ed of mur der . The government seeks t o i mpr i son

hi m f or t en year s.

J ane Doe, a pseudonym, i s a young, si ngl e mother . A dr ug

addi ct , she deal t cocai ne t o suppor t her habi t . Event ual l y

appr ehended, she t oo cooper at ed and t est i f i ed i n open cour t so



6/177

6

t hat t he government mi ght secur e the convi ct i on of an i mport ant

dr ug l or d f r om her homel and. I n l i ght of her cooper at i on, t he

government r ecommends a shor t sent ence. As an al i en, however ,

t he government proposes t o depor t her back t o her homel and wher e,

t he gover nment admi t s, she wi l l al most cer t ai nl y be ki l l ed,

per haps af t er t or t ur e.

To achi eve i t s ends, t he gover nment r out i nel y i mposes a

st i f f penal t y upon def endant s who exer ci se t hei r const i t ut i onal

r i ght t o t r i al by j ur y. I n t he f i r st of t he i nst ant cases, t he

gover nment s at t empt s t o bur den a ci t i zen s r i ght t o a j ur y of

hi s peer s exceeds al l const i t ut i onal bounds. The second case

i nvol ves r epeat ed i nst ances of i l l egal f act bar gai ni ng. The

t hi r d i nvol ves enf or cement of a bar gai n wi t h a col d- bl ooded

ki l l er t hat t he Cour t char act er i zed as evi nci ng a mor al code

mor e sui t ed t o t he al l eys of Baghdad t han t he st r eet s of Bost on,

and t he f our t h r eveal s such cal l ous i ndi f f er ence t o i nnocent

human l i f e as woul d gag any f ai r mi nded obser ver . And t hi s Cour t

- st r i pped of any meani ngf ul r ol e i n t he sent enci ng of of f ender s

who come bef or e i t - can do l i t t l e mor e t han expl ai n what s

goi ng on. That , at l east , I wi l l do.

PART ONE: STRAI GHT TALK ON FEDERAL SENTENCI NG

I . Feder al Sent enci ng Pol i cy - The St at ut or y Fr amewor k

A. The Depar t ment of J ust i ce I s Addi ct ed t o Pl eaBar gai ni ng



7/177

6 See Geor ge Fi sher , Pl ea Bar gai ni ng s Tr i umph: A Hi st or y of

Pl ea Bar gai ni ng i n Amer i ca 222- 23 & t bl . 9. 1 ( 2003) ; St ephanosBi bas, J udi ci al Fact - Fi ndi ng and Sent ence Enhancement s i n a Wor l dof Gui l t y Pl eas, 110 Yal e L. J . 1097, 1150 ( 2001) ; Mar c L. Mi l l er ,Domi nat i on & Di ssat i sf act i on: Pr osecut or s as Sent encer s, 56 St an.L. Rev. 1211, 1252- 54 & t bl . 5 & n. 150 ( 2004) ; Rober t E. Scot t &Wi l l i am J . St unt z, Pl ea Bar gai ni ng as Cont r act , 101 Yal e L. J .1909, 1912 ( 1992) ( [ Pl ea Bar gai ni ng] i s not some adj unct t o t hecri mi nal j ust i ce syst em; i t i s t he cri mi nal j ust i ce syst em. ) .

7 U. S. Sentenci ng Comm n, 2001 Sourcebook of FederalSent enci ng St at i st i cs 20 Fi g. C ( 2001) , atht t p: / / www. ussc. gov/ ANNRPT/ 2001/ SBTOC01. ht m ( l ast vi si t ed J une

16, 2004) [ her ei naf t er Sent enci ng Sour cebook] . Thi s t abl e onl ydeal s wi t h convi cti ons at t r i al and gui l t y pl eas. I f acqui t t al s( but not pr osecut or i al di smi ssal s) ar e added t o t he mi x, t henonl y 95 per cent of al l f eder al cr i mi nal cases are r esol ved vi apl ea bar gai n. Mi l l er , supr a, at 1252 n. 150 ( ci t i ngAdmi ni st r at i ve Of f i ce of t he U. S. Cour t s, Feder al J udi ci alCasel oad St at i st i cs 95 t bl . D- 4 ( 2001) ) .

7

Thi s i s t he essent i al key t o an under st andi ng of f eder al

sent enci ng pol i cy t oday - t he Depar t ment i s so addi ct ed t o pl ea

bar gai ni ng t o l ever age i t s l aw enf or cement r esour ces t o an

over whel mi ng convi ct i on r at e t hat t he f ocus of our ent i r e

cri mi nal j ust i ce syst em has shi f t ed f ar away f r om t r i al s and

j ur i es and adj udi cat i on t o a mass i ve syst em of sent ence

bar gai ni ng t hat i s heavi l y r i gged agai nst t he accused ci t i zen. 6

Fi gur e 1 says i t al l . 7



8/177

8

Fi gur e 1



9/177

8 Thomas C. Bonczar , Bur eau of J ust i ce St at i st i cs,Preval ence of I mpr i sonment i n t he U. S. Popul at i on, 1974- 2001, at2, at ht t p: / / www. oj p. usdoj . gov/ bj s/ pub/ pdf / pi usp01. pdf ( Aug.2003) ; see Kane v. Wi nn, No. Ci v. A. 03- 40116- WGY, 2004 WL1179345, at *1, *13 ( D. Mass. May 27, 2004) ( di scuss i ng how t hi s

f i gur e i n f act under st at es t he ext ent of i ncar cer at i on i n t heUni t ed St at es) . Even Massachuset t s, har dl y a bast i on ofconser vat i sm, i s t oday spendi ng more on pr i sons t han on hi ghereducat i on. Massachuset t s Taxpayer s Found. , Bul l et i n, Nov. 24,2003, at 1.

9 E. g. , Human Ri ght s Wat ch, Race and I ncar cer at i on i n t heUni t ed St at es t bl s. 4, 5 at ht t p: / / hr w. or g/ backgr ounder / usa/ r ace/ #P10_1649 ( Feb. 27, 2002) ; see al so Kane, 2004 WL 1179345, at *11& nn. 25- 27. I ndeed, wer e st at i st i cs t he onl y measur e, ourcr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em woul d appear t o be t he most unchal l enged( and t her ef or e ef f ecti ve) expr essi on of i nst i t ut i onal r aci sm i n

Amer i ca t oday. Whi l e we ar e at pai ns t o deny i t , ot her count r i est ake not i ce and use t hese st at i st i cs i n ant i - Amer i can at t acks.See, e. g. , I nf or mat i on Of f i ce of t he St at e Counci l of t hePeopl e s Republ i c of Chi na, Human Ri ght s Recor d of t he Uni t edSt at es i n 2001 ch. 5 ( 2002) , atht t p: / / www. chi na. or g. cn/ engl i sh/ 2002/ Mar / 28587. ht m ( l ast vi si t edJ une 16, 2004) .

9

Mor eover , [ i ] f i ncar cer at i on r at es r emai n unchanged, 6. 6% of

U. S. r esi dent s bor n i n 2001 wi l l go t o pr i son at some t i me dur i ng

t hei r l i f et i me, 8 a di sproport i onate number of t hese i nmates bei ng

Af r i can Amer i can or Hi spani c Amer i can. 9 Si mpl y to pr ocess t he

enor mous number of convi ct s or soon- t o- be convi ct s, t he

Depar t ment depends on pl ea bar gai ni ng as i t s l i f e s bl ood. I t s

budget pl anni ng ref l ects t he number of i ndi ct ment s on aver age

each addi t i onal assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney wi l l pr oduce,

and i t s resour ces ar e depl oyed accor di ngl y. Today, t he

Depar t ment s ent i r e ef f or t s at l aw enf or cement depend on pl ea

bar gai ni ng as never bef or e.



10/177

10 Fi sher , supr a, at 230.

11 Pat r i ci a M. J ones, Sent enci ng, 24 Am. Cr i m. L. Rev. 879,909 ( 1987) ( ci t i ng H. R. Rep. No. 98- 1017, at 49 ( 1984) ) .

10

Pl ea bar gai ni ng i s not hi ng new, of cour se. As Pr of essor

Geor ge Fi sher has t r enchant l y obser ved:

Somethi ng more than 150 years ago, pl ea bargai ni ng . .. cl ai med but a t i ny beachhead. Support ed onl y by t he

desi r e of pr osecut or s t o manage thei r cr ushi ngwor kl oads and t o gai n an occasi onal ef f or t l ess con-vi ct i on, pl ea bar gai ni ng extended no f ur t her t han t hesent enci ng power of pr osecut or s.

. . .

Then, i n t he l ast quar t er of t he ni neteent hcent ur y, j udges f ound t hemsel ves conf r ont ed by anonsl aught of new, and newl y compl ex, ci vi l sui t sbr ought on by t he ravages of i ndust r i al machi ner y.They saw no choi ce but t o make t er ms wi t h t he new or deri n t he cr i mi nal cour t s. They embr aced pl ea bar gai ni ngand t ur ned t hei r consi der abl e sent enci ng power t o i t spur pose. Sust ai ned now by t he t wo most power f ulcour t r oom pat r ons [ i . e. , j udges and pr osecut or s] , pl eabar gai ni ng swi f t l y became t he domi nant f or ce i ncr i mi nal pr ocedur e. I t pushed asi de t he i ndet er mi nat esent ence, and i t suppor t ed t hose i nst i t ut i ons, such aspr obat i on and t he publ i c def ender , t hat ai ded i t scause. 10

As a resul t , by the mi d- 1980s r oughl y ni net y per cent of

convi ct i ons i n f eder al cr i mi nal cases wer e r eached t hr ough pl ea

bar gai ns. 11

B. Ent er t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

1. Over vi ew

The sent enci ng syst em our soci et y has adopt ed wi t h r espect

t o f eder al of f ender s i s embodi ed i n t he Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng



11/177

12 See, e. g. , J ack H. McCal l , J r . , The Emper or s NewCl ot hes: Due Pr ocess Consi der at i ons Under t he Feder al Sent enci ngGui del i nes, 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 467, 468- 69 ( 1993) .

13 See Mi st r et t a v. Uni t ed St at es, 488 U. S. 361 ( 1989) .14 U. S. Sent enci ng Comm n, Gui del i nes Manual ( 2003)

[ her ei naf t er U. S. S. G. ] Ch. 3, Pt . A, p. s. ; see al so 28 U. S. C. 991( b) ( 1) ( B) ( 2000) ( t he Gui del i nes seek to avoi d[ ] unwar r ant edsent enci ng di spar i t i es among def endant s wi t h si mi l ar r ecor ds whohave been f ound gui l t y of si mi l ar cr i mi nal conduct ) .

15 J ames B. Bur ns, et al . , We Make t he Bet t er Tar get ( Butt he Gui del i nes Shi f t ed Power f r om t he J udi ci ar y t o Congr ess, Notf r om t he J udi ci ar y t o t he Pr osecut i on) , 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1317,1317- 18 ( 1997) ; see al so J ef f r ey St anden, The End of t he Era of

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes: Appr endi v. New J er sey, 87 I owa L. Rev.775, 786 (2002) ( asser t i ng t hat t he Gui del i nes have r epl acedj udi ci al di scr et i on over sent enci ng wi t h prosecut or i aldi scret i on) ; Al ber t W. Al schul er , The Fai l ur e of Sent enci ngGui del i nes: A Pl ea f or Less Aggr egat i on, 58 U. Chi . L. Rev. 901,903 ( 1991) ( st at i ng t hat t he Gui del i nes cr eat e a mor e power f ulpr osecut or ) .

11

Gui del i nes ( Gui del i nes) . Adopt ed by l ar ge bi par t i san

maj or i t i es i n bot h Houses of Congr ess, 12 and l at er hel d

const i t ut i onal by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, 13 t he

Gui del i nes wer e i nt ended t o cabi n i n unwar r ant ed j udi ci al

di scr et i on i n sent enci ng whi l e r et ai ni ng suf f i ci ent f l exi bi l i t y

t o ensur e i ndi vi dual i zed, j ust sent ences i n ever y case. 14 At t he

t i me of t he Gui del i nes passage, i t was r ecogni zed t hat t her e

woul d be a massi ve power shi f t f r om t he j udi ci ar y t o t he

execut i ve as pr osecut or i al j udgment s became by f ar t he maj or

determi nant of a def endant s sent ence. 15 St i l l , i t was bel i eved



12/177

16 St anden, supr a, at 789.

17 Wi l l i am W. Wi l ki ns, J r . & J ohn R. St eer , Rel evantConduct : The Cor ner st one of t he Feder al Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, 41S. C. L. Rev. 495 ( 1990) .

12

t hat a robust and i ndependent j udi ci ar y coul d hol d any excesses

i n check. 16

Thi s l at t er expect at i on has proved ut t er l y i n vai n. Agai nst

t he cent r al l y or gani zed ef f or t s of t he Depar t ment t o mani pul at e

sent ences and sent enci ng pol i cy t o achi eve t he percei ved goal s of

l aw enf or cement , t he ef f or t s of i ndi vi dual j udges t o cont r ol t he

whi r l wi nd have been but a weak reed - - unnot i ced, der i ded, and

l ar gel y r ej ect ed. As a r esul t , t he Si xth Amendment guar ant ee of

t r i al by j ur y has been er oded as never bef or e i n t he hi st or y of

our nat i on, whi l e t he i nst i t ut i onal j udi ci ar y compl acent l y sl i ps

i nt o f or ms of expr essi on and modes of t hought t hat unconsci ousl y

r ei nf orce the Depart ment agenda i n a powerf ul l y Or wel l i an way.

2. Rel evant Conduct : The Cor ner st one of t he Feder alSent enci ng Gui del i nes17 I s Act ual l y Naught butt he Depar t ment s Theor y of t he Of f ense

I n any i ndetermi nate sent enci ng scheme, a j udge must

det er mi ne wher e, wi t hi n t he st at ut or i l y per mi ssi bl e r ange, t o

sent ence an of f ender . When I f i r st came t o t he st at e bench i n

Massachuset t s, now a quar t er cent ur y ago, t here were a number of

of f enses ( armed r obbery was one) pur suant t o whi ch I was

empower ed t o i mpose any sent ence, r angi ng f r om st r ai ght pr obat i on



13/177

18 See U. S. S. G. Ch. 3, Pt . A, p. s . ; Wi l l i am J . Powel l &Mi chael T. Chi mi no, Pr osecut or i al Di scr et i on under t he Feder alSent enci ng Gui del i nes: I s t he Fox Guardi ng t he Hen House?, 97 W.Va. L. Rev. 373, 379- 80 ( 1995) ( di scussi ng t he hi st or y of

sent enci ng i n t he Uni t ed St ates and t he move toward cr eat i ng asyst em t hat woul d sol ve t he unpr edi ct abi l i t y and di spar i t y i nsent enci ng) .

19 U. S. S. G. Ch. 3, Pt . A, p. s. ; i d. 1B1. 3.

20 I d. Ch. 3, Pt . A, p. s . ; i d. 1B1. 3.

13

t o l i f e i mpr i sonment . To exer ci se t hi s power wi sel y, I r ecal l

r eadi ng ever ythi ng t hat I coul d about an of f ender and t hen

si t t i ng down pr i vat el y wi t h a pr obat i on of f i cer and aski ng:

What do we know about t hi s person?

One obj ect of t he Gui del i nes was pr eci sel y t o put an end t o

t hi s unf et t er ed exer ci se of di scr et i on based on such an i nf or mal ,

of f t he r ecor d, and ungui ded di scussi on. 18 I n i t s pl ace, t he

Gui del i nes i nt r oduced a concept known as r eal of f ense

sent enci ng, based on an of f ender s r el evant conduct . 19

Pur suant t o t hi s appr oach - - and i n keepi ng wi t h t he goal of

cur bi ng j udi ci al di scret i on - - a j udge must f i r st det er mi ne t he

of f ender s r el evant conduct f r om mat er i al s f or mal l y pl aced

bef ore hi m pr i mar i l y by t he Depart ment ; t hen t he j udge must

i mpose a sent ence based on t he of f ender s r eal of f ense, wi t hout

r egar d t o t he act ual of f ense of convi ct i on. 20 Thi s, i t was

t hought , woul d r epl i cat e - - i n a mor e cont r ol l ed f ashi on - - t he

ol d, i nf or mal conf er ence wi t h t he pr obat i on of f i cer . I t has not

worked out t hat way.



14/177

21 See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26- 37.

22 See Ri char d S. Frase, St at e Sent enci ng Gui del i nes: St i l lGoi ng St r ong, 78 J udi cat ur e 173, 176 ( 1995) ( not i ng t hat gui de-l i nes st at es are unani mous i n r ej ect i ng t he br oader r ealof f ense appr oach of t he f eder al gui del i nes, whi ch per mi tf r equent and subst ant i al sentence enhancement s based on unchar ged r el evant conduct ) .

14

Fi r st , t he ver y f or mal i sm of t he pr ocess has enhanced t he

Depar t ment s abi l i t y t o cont r ol t he i nf or mat i on f l ow t o t he

j udge. Af t er al l , unl i ke a ci vi l l i t i gant , 21 a cr i mi nal

def endant has al ways been at an ext r eme di sadvant age i n f ederal

cour t i n di scover i ng t he weaknesses i n t he Depar t ment s case, and

t he Gui del i nes onl y exacer bat e t hi s vast di spar i t y. Mor eover ,

t he Gui del i nes cut t he j udge of f f r om i nf or mal i nt er change wi t h

exper i enced pr obat i on of f i cer s - - i nt er change whi ch I l ear ned

f r om my st at e cour t servi ce not i nf r equent l y added nuance t o the

Depar t ment s ver si on of an of f ender s hi st or y.

Second, t he concept of r eal of f ense sent enci ng as

pr act i ced under t he Gui del i nes not onl y af f ect s wher e - - wi t hi n

t he per mi ssi bl e range - - an of f ender ought be sent enced, i t

f r equent l y adj ust s that r ange upwar d consi der abl y. No st at e

syst em - not one - has adopt ed t hi s appr oach. 22 The r esul t has

been t he rout i ne sent enci ng of of f ender s on t he basi s of cr i mes

wi t h whi ch t hey have never been charged, t he commi ss i on of whi ch

t hey deny, wi t hout any evi dence ever havi ng been pr of f ered



15/177

23 The case of Ri char d Gr een, di scussed bel ow, pr ovi des ani l l ust r at i on.

24 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wat t s, 519 U. S. 148, 157( 1997) ( hol di ng t hat a j ur y s ver di ct of acqui t t al does notpr event a sent enci ng cour t f r om consi der i ng a def endant s conductunder l yi ng t he acqui t t ed char ge, so l ong as t hat conduct i sest abl i shed by a pr eponderance st andard) .

25 See Ber t hof f v. Uni t ed St at es, 140 F. Supp. 2d 50, 62n. 19 ( D. Mass. 2001) , af f d, 308 F. 3d 124 ( 1st Ci r . 2002)( def i ni ng f act bargai ni ng as t he knowi ng abandonment by thegovernment of a mater i al f act devel oped by l aw enf orcementaut hor i t i es or f r om a wi t ness expected t o t est i f y i n or der t oi nduce a gui l t y pl ea) .

15

agai nst t hem. 23 Even mor e bi zar r e, f eder al cr i mi nal sent ences

may t oday be based on conduct of whi ch an of f ender has been

f or mal l y acqui t t ed. 24

The devol ut i on of such enor mous power on f eder al prosecutor s

has had an al l - t oo- pr edi ct abl e r esul t . Whi l e t her e may st i l l be

j udi ci al l i mi t s on t he out er boundar i es of a prosecut or s

asser t i on of r el evant conduct ( as t he case of J ason Pacheco

di scussed bel ow, shows) , none pr event s a pr osecut or f r om t ur ni ng

a bl i nd eye on conduct ot her wi se rel evant ( as t he case of Wi l l i am

Ol i ver o di scussed bel ow, shows) . So i t i s t hat t he phenomenon

known as f act bar gai ni ng has come to f l our i sh as never bef or e

i n t he f eder al cour t s. 25

The Depar t ment t oday has t he power - and t he i ncent i ve -

t o r at chet puni shment up or down sol el y at i t s di scr et i on. I t

does so most of t en t o bur den a def endant s const i t ut i onal r i ght

t o a j ur y t r i al and t hus f or ce a pl ea bar gai n. The r esul t : I n



16/177

26 Bert hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 68 & nn. 32, 33. The Cour tr ecount s one t el l i ng exampl e f r om t hi s Di st r i ct . I n Uni t edSt at es v. I sol a, Cr i m. No. 00- 10271- EFH, t he def endant , who waspr esi dent of Damon Cl i ni cal Labor at or i es, ent er ed a pl ea of nol ocont ender e t o an i nf or mat i on al l egi ng conspi r acy t o def r aud t heUni t ed St ates under 18 U. S. C. 371, t he government di smi ssed t hei ndi ct ment , and t he par t i es agr eed t o wai ve a pr e- sent enci ngr epor t Tr . of 7/ 28/ 00 Pl ea Hr g, at 1- 8 [ Docket No. 7] . J udgeHar r i ngt on i mposed a sent ence of t hr ee year s probat i on and a f i ne

of $100. I d. at 15. Wi l l i am Thur st on, I sol a s co- conspi r at orand vi ce pr esi dent at Damon Cl i ni cal Labor at or i es, i nsi st ed ongoi ng t o t r i al , and was convi ct ed of conspi r i ng t o def r aud t heUni t ed St at es. See Uni t ed St at es v. Thur st on, 358 F. 3d 51, 53-54 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Al t hough t he Gui del i nes pr escr i bed asent enci ng range of 63 to 78 mont hs, J udge Harr i ngt on sent encedThurst on t o t hree mont hs i n pr i son, depar t i ng downwar d bot h t ocor r ect f or t he di spar i t y bet ween hi s sent ence and I sol a s, andt o take account of Thur st on s ext r aor di nar y good wor ks i n hi schur ch and communi t y. I d. at 54. The Fi r st Ci r cui t r ever sed t hedepart ur e on both gr ounds and r emanded f or i mposi t i on of a f i ve-year pr i son sent ence ( t he st atut ory maxi mum) and an appr opr i ate

f i ne. I d. at 82.

27 I t i s appr opr i at e t o speak of a mar ket f or pl eabargai ns. Comment ators have l ong r ecogni zed t hat t he cont r actualnat ur e of t he pl ea bar gai ni ng pr ocess yi el ds t o anal ysi s aki n t ot he commer ci al ar ena. See, e. g. , Frank H. East er br ook, Cr i mi nalProcedur e as a Mar ket Syst em, 12 J . Legal St ud. 289 ( 1983) ; Scot t

16

t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s, an i ndi vi dual who st ands up t o the

Depar t ment and i nsi st s on a j ur y t r i al get s, upon convi ct i on, a

sent ence 500 per cent l onger t han a si mi l ar l y si t uat ed def endant

who pl eads gui l t y and cooperates. 26

3. Enhanced Pl ea Bar gai ni ng I s Actual l y t he Cent r alGoal of t he Gui del i nes

Whi l e reduci ng unwar r ant ed di spar i t y i n t he j udi ci al

t r eat ment of of f ender s was t out ed as t he r ef or m whi ch the

Gui del i nes sought t o wor k, t he Depar t ment wel l r ecogni zed t he

advant age i t woul d der i ve i n mar ket i ng pl ea bar gai ns27 i f



17/177

& St unt z, supr a; J ef f r ey St anden, Pl ea Bar gai ni ng i n t he Shadow

of t he Gui del i nes, 81 Cal . L. Rev. 1471 ( 1993) .

For a cr i t i que of concept ual i zi ng cr i mi nal pr ocedur e as amar ket , see St ephen J . Schul hof er , Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Di scr et i on asa Regul at or y Syst em, 17 J . Legal St ud. 43 ( 1988) . See al soSt ephen J . Schul hof er , Pl ea Bar gai ni ng as Di sast er , 101 Yal e L. J .1979 ( 1992) ( concl udi ng t hat pl ea bar gai ni ng shoul d be abol i shedbased on economi c anal ysi s) .

28 See, e. g. , Fi sher , supr a, at 224- 27; Rachel E. Bar kow,Rechar gi ng t he J ur y: The Cr i mi nal J ur y s Const i t ut i onal Rol e i nan Er a of Mandatory Sent enci ng, 152 U. Pa. L. Rev. 33, 97- 98

( 2003) ; St ephen J . Schul hof er , Due Process of Sent enci ng, 128 U.Pa. L. Rev. 733, 752- 53 ( 1980) .

29 See, e. g. , Tr . of 1/ 16/ 01 Pl ea & Rel at ed Hr g at 2,Uni t ed St ates v. Woodward, Cr i m. A. No. 99- 10393- WGY; see al soBer t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 94 ( ci t i ng t he Woodwar d Pl ea andRel at ed Hear i ng Tr anscr i pt ) .

17

j udi ci al di scr et i on i n sent enci ng was shar pl y di mi ni shed. By

candi dl y mar gi nal i zi ng t he j udi ci al r ol e, i t was t hought t hat

of f ender s woul d be mor e l i kel y t o pl ead gui l t y as t hey coul d know

wi t h gr eat er cer t ai nt y what t o expect i f t hey di d. 28

Ther e i s t r uth i n t hi s obser vat i on. My own exper i ence i s

t hat gui l t y of f ender s hope agai nst hope f or some especi al

l eni ency and, when t hat hope i s dashed by def ense counsel

expl ai ni ng t hat t he Gui del i nes f or ecl ose such r esul t - i f t hey

do not f i r e t he l awyer f or bei ng t he bear er of bad t i di ngs29 -

many wi l l pl ead gui l t y t o obt ai n t he di scount of f er ed by the

Depar t ment t o i nduce a pl ea.

4. Accept ance of Respons i bi l i t y



18/177

30 See Par t One, Sect i on I . D. 2, i nf r a.

31 For r el at i vel y shor t sent ences, t he di scount i s t wol evel s of f t he of f ender s adj ust ed of f ense l evel , U. S. S. G. 3E1. 1( a) , and t hr ee l evel s of f l onger sent ences, i d. 3E1. 1( b) .The j udge must gi ve al l or nothi ng. See i d. 3E1. 1. Ther e i s

no pl ea bargai n di scount of f mandatory sent ences f or mereaccept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y.

32 U. S. S. G. 3E1. 1 cmt 2. But see i d. ( I n r ar e si t uat i onsa def endant may cl ear l y demonst r ate an accept ance ofr esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s cr i mi nal conduct even t hough he exer ci seshi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o a t r i al . Thi s may occur , f or exampl e,wher e a def endant goes t o t r i al t o asser t and pr eserve i ssuest hat do not r el at e t o f act ual gui l t ( e. g. , t o make aconst i t ut i onal chal l enge t o a st at ut e or a chal l enge t o t heappl i cabi l i t y of a st at ut e t o hi s conduct) . ) .

33 Today, a f ul l 20. 8 per cent of t hose accused by t heDepar t ment who go t o t r i al ar e acqui t t ed. Admi ni st r at i ve Of f i ceof t he U. S. Cour t s, J udi ci al Busi ness of t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t st bl . D- 7 ( 2004) ( on f i l e wi t h t he Cour t ) ( pr esent i ng dat a f or t het wel ve- mont h per i od endi ng March 31, 2004) . Thi s percent age i shi gher t han i t has ever been si nce I came on t he bench i n 1985.The hi gh acqui t t al r at e coul d mean any number of t hi ngs, and

18

Li ke so much of our di scour se about sentenci ng, we empl oy

sophi st r y rat her t han st r ai ght t al k. 30 Under t he Gui del i nes, an

of f ender i s el i gi bl e f or a di scount on hi s sent ence i f he

accept s r esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s cri me. 31 Act ual l y, t hi s

di scount has nothi ng whatsoever t o do wi t h t r ue accept ance of

r esponsi bi l i t y f or one s acts. I f i t di d, t he di scount woul d be

equal l y avai l abl e t o t hose who ar e convi ct ed af t er t r i al and i t

i s not . 32 What we mean by accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y i s s i mpl y

t he di scount of f er ed f or pl eadi ng gui l t y (ear l i er i s bet t er ) ,

t hus savi ng t he Depart ment t he t r oubl e, expense, and

uncer t ai nt y33 of a j ur y t r i al . I ndeed, so di vor ced i s t he



19/177

specul at i on wi t hout mor e i nf ormat i on woul d be i nappr opr i at e.

34 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Labovi t z, 50 F. 3d 1, 1995 WL133339, at *2 & n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( unpubl i shed t abl e deci si on)( not i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t awar ded an accept ance ofr esponsi bi l i t y adj ust ment t o a def endant who t r i ed unsuccessf ul l y

t o wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea) . I t i s, of cour se, per mi ssi bl e t oaccept a val i d gui l t y pl ea f r om one who pr ot est s hi s i nnocence.Nor t h Car ol i na v. Al f or d, 400 U. S. 25, 38- 39 ( 1970) . Thi s Cour tr out i nel y accept s Al f or d pl eas, and as f ar as i t i s awar e, ot herj udges i n t hi s Di st r i ct do t he same.

35 See Fi sher , supr a, at 224- 26.

19

concept f r om t r ue accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y t hat even t hose

who pr ot est t hei r i nnocence of some or al l of t he char ges agai nst

t hem ar e r out i nel y gi ven t he di scount - but onl y i f t hey l l

pl ead gui l t y. 34

Ther e i s not hi ng surpr i si ng about t hi s di scount save t he

Sent enci ng Commi ss i on s sophomor i c at t empt t o obscure what i s

goi ng on. I ndeed, t hi s di scount i s, and al ways has been, t he

essence of t he pl ea bar gai n. 35

The probl em f or t he Depar t ment l i es i n t he f act t hat t he

or i gi nal Sent enci ng Commi ssi on made t he di scount r el at i vel y

t r i vi al compar ed t o t he dr aconi an sent ences i t pr omul gat ed. Thi s

upset t he cal cul at i ons of t he Depart ment and t he def ense bar

al i ke. The accept ance di scount was al l t oo conf i ni ng f or a

Depart ment dependant on a 90 percent pl ea bargai n r ate f or i t s

ver y operat i onal exi st ence. At t he same t i me, t he Depart ment had

t o be t ough on cr i me, so i t coul d har dl y ask t he Sent enci ng

Commi ssi on f or a l ar ger acr oss- t he- boar d di scount and t hus l ower



20/177

36 Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 55.

20

t he sent enci ng r anges i t had successf ul l y obt ai ned. Much of t he

i nst i t ut i onal devel opment of sent enci ng pol i cy af t er t he

enactment of t he Sent enci ng Ref orm Act can best be seen as t he

Depar t ment s at t empt s t o br eak out of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

cor r al 36 and gat her t o i t sel f t he r emai ni ng aspect s of

sent enci ng di scr et i on whi l e denyi ng t hose same aspect s t o t he

j udi ci ar y.

C. Today t he Depar t ment Est abl i shes t he Sent ence; t heFeder al J udge Si mpl y I mposes I t

As t he const ant i nst i t ut i onal f or ce i n t he devel opment of

sent enci ng pol i cy, i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat t he Depar t ment woul d

f r equent l y get i t s way. The st ar t l i ng, unt ol d st or y i s t he

ext ent t o whi ch t he Depart ment as a f unct i onal mat t er now can

determi ne t he sent ence t o be i mposed upon t hose whom i t accuses

of cr i mes. Not sur pr i si ngl y, i t uses i t s vast power s t o i nduce

pl ea bar gai ns, t hus evi scer at i ng t he const i t ut i onal guar ant ee oft r i al by a j ur y of one s peer s. Most of i t s met hods ar e l egal ,

some ar e di sf avor ed but wi nked at , one i s f l at - out i l l egal . Al l

ar e r out i ne. For t he Depar t ment t oday, t he Gui del i nes ar e har dl y

a const r ai nt ; t hei r val ue l i es i n const r ai ni ng an al r eady

mar gi nal i zed di st r i ct cour t j udi ci ar y.

How can t he Depart ment so conf i dent l y i nduce pl ea bargai ns?

Let us count t he ways:



21/177

37 I d. at 75- 91 App. B.

21

1. Char ge Bar gai ni ng

The most t r adi t i onal of t he Depar t ment s bargai ni ng chi ps i s

t he abi l i t y t o dr op char ges at wi l l . Thi s has al ways been t he

pr erogat i ve of t he execut i ve, and t he Depart ment has had

ext ensi ve r ecour se t o i t . I ndeed, i n t he Di st r i ct of

Massachuset t s t he best avai l abl e dat a i ndi cat es 65 char ge

bargai ns i n t he year s 1998- 2000. 37 The pr essure i s pl aced upon

t he def endant by br i ngi ng a mul t i - count i ndi ct ment and t hen

t r adi ng away char ges or count s mor e di f f i cul t t o pr ove i n r et ur n

f or a gui l t y pl ea t o ot her count s or l esser char ges.

Tr ue, At t or ney Gener al Ashcr of t has r ecent l y f or bi dden

Depart ment al charge bargai ni ng i n no uncer t ai n t erms:

I t i s t he pol i cy of t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce t hat , i nal l f eder al cr i mi nal cases, f eder al pr osecut or s mustcharge and pur sue t he most ser i ous, r eadi l y pr ovabl eof f ense or of f enses t hat ar e suppor t ed by the f act s oft he case, except as aut hor i zed by an Assi st ant At t or ney

Gener al , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, or desi gnat edsuper vi sor y at t or ney i n the l i mi t ed ci r cumst ancesdescr i bed bel ow. The most ser i ous of f ense or of f ensesar e t hose that gener at e t he most subst ant i al sent enceunder t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, unl ess a mandatorymi ni mum sent ence or count r equi r i ng a consecut i vesent ence woul d generate a l onger sent ence. A charge i snot r eadi l y pr ovabl e i f t he pr osecut or has a goodf ai t h doubt , f or l egal or evi dent i ar y r easons, as t ot he Gover nment s abi l i t y readi l y t o pr ove a char ge att r i al . Thus, char ges shoul d not be f i l ed si mpl y t oexer t l ever age t o i nduce a pl ea. Once f i l ed, t he most



22/177

38 Sept . 22, 2003 Memorandum f r omAt t orney General J ohnAshcr of t Set t i ng For t h J ust i ce Depar t ment s Char gi ng and Pl eaPol i ci es I . A, r epr i nt ed i n 16 Fed. Sent . Rep. 129 ( 2003)[ herei naf t er Ashcr of t Memorandum] .

39 See, e. g. , Tr . of 3/ 23/ 04 Pl ea Hr g, Uni t ed St at es v.Davi d Smi t h, Cr i m. A. No. 02- 10147- WGY.

40 See i d.

41 21 U. S. C. 851( a) ( 1) .

42 U. S. Const . amend. V.

43 21 U. S. C. 851( a) ( 1) .

22

ser i ous r eadi l y pr ovabl e char ges may not be di smi ssedexcept t o t he extent permi t t ed i n Sect i on B. 38

But t hi s appear s t o be sound and f ur y, si gni f yi ng l i t t l e. Char ge

bar gai ni ng cont i nues i n t hi s Di st r i ct as bef or e39 and Depar t ment

at t or neys seem t o know l i t t l e about t he cent r al i zed per mi t t i ng

pr ocess At t orney General Ashcr of t has i mpl ement ed. 40

2. Not i f i cat i on of Sent enci ng Enhancement s

Cer t ai n cr i mi nal st at ut es per mi t enhanced sent ences upon t he

Depar t ment s not i f i cat i on t o t he cour t of a pr i or convi ct i on

bef or e t r i al ( or bef or e sent enci ng af t er a pl ea) .

41

Thi snot i f i cat i on need not be t hr ough t he const i t ut i onal pr ocesses of

a gr and j ur y, 42 si mpl e wr i t t en not i f i cat i on t o t he cour t and t he

def endant i s suf f i ci ent . 43

Depar t ment al at t or neys ar e t hus abl e t o t hr eat en t o gi ve

such not i ce - t her ef or e r at chet i ng up sent ences i n appl i cabl e



23/177

44 Because t he Depar t ment i s t ypi cal l y i n a posi t i on t o f i l ea compl et e i nf or mat i on t o est abl i sh pr i or convi ct i on ear l y i n t hecase, f i l i ng of an i nf or mat i on cl ose t o t he pl ea or t r i al dat esuggest s t hat t he Depar t ment was wi t hhol di ng f i l i ng t oencour age a def endant t o pl ead gui l t y. See, e. g. , Uni t edSt ates v. Warr en, Cr i m. A. No. 03- 10361- RWZ- 2 ( i ndi ct ment [ Doc.No. 16] f i l ed 12/ 3/ 03, i nf or mat i on t o est abl i sh pr i or convi ct i on[ Doc. No. 55] f i l ed 6/ 16/ 04, gui l t y pl ea ent er ed 6/ 16/ 04) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Copel and, Cr i m. A. No. 02- 10291- DPW( i ndi ct ment [ Doc.No. 15] f i l ed 10/ 2/ 02, i nf or mat i on [ Doc. No. 83] f i l ed 9/ 2/ 03,gui l t y pl ea ent er ed 9/ 3/ 03) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tal ver a, Cr i m. A.

No. 03- 10142- WGY ( i ndi ct ment [ Doc. No. 11] f i l ed 5/ 1/ 03,i nf or mat i on [ Doc. No. 16] f i l ed 7/ 8/ 03, gui l t y pl ea ent er ed7/ 29/ 03) .

45 18 U. S. C. 3553( f ) .

46 U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( b) ( 6) , 5C1. 2( a) .

23

cases - whenever an accused pr oves recal ci t r ant about coppi ng a

pl ea. Make no mi st ake - t hi s happens. 44

3. The Saf et y Val ve

Proper l y concerned about t he r i gi di t y of mandatory mi ni mum

sent ences, Congr ess passed saf et y val ve l egi sl at i on desi gned t o

amel i or at e undul y har sh sent ences f or f i r st t i me of f ender s. 45

Even so, t he di scount f or t hose who ar e saf et y val ve el i gi bl e

i s not l ef t t o j udi ci al di scr et i on, but i s pr escr i bed by t he

Gui del i nes. 46 Al t hough t he l egi sl at i on nowher e so speci f i es, as

a pr act i cal mat t er , of cour se, t he benef i t s of t he saf et y val ve

ar e avai l abl e onl y t o those def endant s who wi l l f or go pr ot ect i ons

of t he Amer i can j ur y, pl ead gui l t y, and pl ace t hemsel ves i n t he

Depar t ment s hands. Here s why:



24/177

47 See 18 U. S. C. 3553( f ) ( 1) .

48 See i d. 3553( f ) ( 5) .

24

Fi r st , t he saf et y val ve i s avai l abl e onl y t o of f ender s who

do not have more t han one cr i mi nal hi st ory poi nt under t he

Gui del i nes - t ypi cal l y f i r st - t i me of f ender s. 47 Wher e t he

Depar t ment l i kes an of f ender due to hi s cooper at i on, even a

ser i es of cr i mi nal convi ct i ons can be col l apsed i nt o a si ngl e

cour se of conduct , t hus maki ng t he cooper at i ve of f ender saf et y

val ve el i gi bl e.

Far more i mport ant , however i s t he saf ety val ve r equi r ement

t hat t he of f ender cooper at e f ul l y wi t h t he Depar t ment . 48 I t i s

t hi s r equi r ement , of cour se, t hat secur es t he Depar t ment s whi p

hand t hough, on i t s f ace, t he saf et y val ve l ooks l i ke a j udge-

det er mi ned di scount . Thi s i s because t he Depar t ment necessar i l y

must advi se the cour t concer ni ng t he t r ut hf ul ness and

compl et eness of t he of f ender s pr of f er . Wher e t he Depar t ment i s

di ssat i sf i ed - and t el l s t he cour t t he pr of f er i s not f ul l y

t r ut hf ul - i t t akes ei t her i nvest i gat or y r esour ces not avai l abl e

t o t he cour t , or exhaust i ve hear i ngs t o est abl i sh t he t r ut h of

t he mat t er . Most cour t s, t hi s one i ncl uded, t hus rar el y go

behi nd t he Depar t ment s r epr esent at i on, wi t h t he pr edi ct abl e

r esul t t hat t he Depar t ment t oday i s f i r ml y i n char ge of t he



25/177

49 The case of J ason Pacheco, di scussed bel ow, pr ovi des anexampl e. At hi s sent enci ng hear i ng, Pacheco sought a saf et yval ve r educt i on, but t he Depart ment cont est ed i t , and t he Cour tr ef used t o awar d t he r educt i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Yej e- Cabr er a,Cr i m. No. 01- 10469, Tr . of 8/ 5/ 03 Sent enci ng Hr g. Onl y r ar el ycoul d a def endant est abl i sh t he r equi r ement s of t he saf et y val vei n t he f ace of Depar t ment al opposi t i on, and Pacheco f ai l ed t o doso.

50 See Mel endez v. Uni t ed St ates, 518 U. S. 120, 125- 27( 1996) .

51 Thi s t abl e appear s i n Amer i can Col l ege of Tr i al Lawyer s,Repor t and Proposal on Sect i on 5K1. 1 of t he U. S. Sent enci ngGui del i nes 23 ( 1999) , at ht t p: / / www. act l . com/ PDFs/Repor t Pr oposal Sent enci ngGui del i nes. pdf ( l ast vi si t ed J une 16,2004) . The ver si on i n t hi s opi ni on i s t aken f r om Ber t hof f , 140F. Supp. 2d at 73 App. A.

25

saf et y val ve. I t i s act i vat ed when t he Depar t ment wi shes and

wi t hhel d when i t does not . 49

4. Subst ant i al Assi st ance

Bot h 18 U. S. C. 3553( e) and U. S. S. G. 5K1. 1 per mi t

downward depart ur es f or of f enders who pr ovi de subst ant i al

assi st ance t o l aw enf or cement aut hor i t i es. These ar e onl y

avai l abl e i f t he Depar t ment f i l es a mot i on r equest i ng t hem, and

i n cases where a st atut e pr ovi des f or a mandatory mi ni mum

sent ence, t he Depart ment can l i mi t t he ext ent of t he downward

depart ur e by seeki ng a depart ur e bel ow t he Gui del i nes r ange but

not bel ow t he mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence. 50 As Fi gur e 2 makes

cl ear , subst ant i al assi st ance depar t ur es ar e subst ant i al l y

unpr i nci pl ed. 51



26/177

52 I n 2001, 17. 1 per cent of al l f eder al of f ender s r ecei ved adownwar d depar t ur e f or subst ant i al assi st ance, and 18. 3 per cent

of al l f eder al of f ender s r ecei ved a downwar d depart ur e f or someot her r eason. See Sent enci ng Sour cebook, supr a, Fi g. G. I n t hecases t hat di d not i nvol ve subst ant i al assi st ance, no one r easonwas i nvoked i n more than 20 per cent of t he cases, so t he nextcl osest gr ound f or downwar d depar t ur e ( gener al mi t i gat i ngci r cumst ances) onl y appear ed i n about 3. 6 per cent of cases. I d.t bl . 24. I n each of t he f our pr evi ous year s, t he per cent age of

26

Fi gur e 2

Ut t er l y wi t hi n t he Depar t ment s cont r ol , t hey ar e, by f ar , t he

maj or gr ound f or downward depart ur e f r omt he Gui del i nes. 52 The



27/177

cases wi t h subst ant i al assi st ance downward depart ur es was hi ghert han t he per cent age of cases wi t h depar t ur es t hat f el l i nt o oneof t he ot her cat egor i es. I d. Fi g. G.

53 The f ol l owi ng f eder al di st r i ct s depar t downwar d i n atl east 50 per cent of t hei r cr i mi nal cases: Mi ddl e Di st r i ct of

Al abama, Di st r i ct of Ar i zona, Sout her n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a,Nor t her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k, Nor t her n Mar i ana I sl ands, andEast er n Di st r i ct of Washi ngt on. Sent enci ng Sour cebook, supr a, at53- 55 t bl . 26.

54 See Li nda Dr azga Maxf i el d & J ohn H. Kr amer, Subst ant i alAssi st ance: An Empi r i cal Yar dst i ck Gaugi ng Equi t y i n Cur r entFeder al Pol i cy and Pr at i ce 2- 4 ( 1998) [ her ei naf t er Subst ant i alAssi st ance] , at ht t p: / / www. ussc. gov/ publ i cat / 5kr epor t . pdf ( not i ngt he l ack of gui dance t hat 18 U. S. C. 3553( e) , t he Gui del i nesManual , and pr osecut or i al di r ect i ves pr ovi de as t o t he st andar dsf or det er mi ni ng whet her assi st ance i s subst ant i al , and f or

cor r el at i ng t he t ype and extent of assi st ance wi t h t he magni t udeof depar t ur e) ; see al so Two Sent enci ng Commi ss i on St af f Repor t son Subst ant i al Assi st ance, 11 Fed. Sent . Rep. 6 ( 1998)( pr esent i ng t hi s r epor t and an ear l i er r epor t ) .

55 See Subst ant i al Assi t ance, supr a, at 13- 14 & n. 30( di scussi ng dat a and model i ng suggest i ng t hat Af r i can Amer i can

27

sweepi ng ext ent of depar t ur es f or subst ant i al assi st ance

demonst r ates, as not hi ng el se, t hat t he Depar t ment t oday si mpl y

cannot enf orce the l aws wi t hout a huge vol ume of pl ea bargai ns, a

l ar ge number of whi ch t ur n on t he Depar t ment s abi l i t y to i gnor e

t he st r i ct ur es of t he Gui del i nes and t he mandat or y mi ni mum

sent enci ng system by cut t i ng deal s wi t h of f ender s. I ndeed, i n

many di st r i ct s53 an of f ender has onl y a r andomchance of

r ecei vi ng a sent ence wi t hi n t he Gui del i nes due to t he vol ume of

subst ant i al assi st ance depart ur es appr oved by t he Depart ment .

Whi l e comment at or s j ust l y excor i at e t he subst ant i al

assi st ance di scount f or i t s vagar i es, 54 i t s pot ent i al r aci sm, 55



28/177

of f ender s wer e bet ween 7. 7 and 9. 3 per cent l ess l i kel y t o r ecei vesubst ant i al assi st ance depar t ur es t han non- mi nor i t y of f ender s,and t hat Hi spani c Amer i can of f ender s wer e 7 per cent l ess l i kel yt o recei ve such depar t ur es t han non- Hi spani c of f ender s) ; i d. at19 ( not i ng t hat et hni ci t y, ci t i zenshi p, and r ace had

st at i st i cal l y si gni f i cant ef f ect s on t he magni t ude of subst ant i alassi st ance depar t ur es awar ded) ; i d. at 31 Ex. 9, 34 Ex. 12( summar i zi ng st at i st i cal l y si gni f i cant di spar i t i es f or r ace,et hni ci t y, ci t i zenshi p, gender , age, and educat i on) ; see al soDavi d B. Must ar d, Raci al , Et hni c, and Gender Di spar i t i es i nSent enci ng: Evi dence f r om t he U. S. Feder al Cour t s, 44 J . L. &Econ. 285, 308- 12 ( 2001) ( f i ndi ng di spar i t i es i n t he l i kel i hoodand magni t ude of downward depart ur es based on race ( part i cul ar l yf or Af r i can Amer i cans and Hi spani c Amer i cans) , gender ( i . e. ,women ar e mor e l i kel y to r ecei ve depar t ur es) , ci t i zenshi p, age,i ncome l evel , and educat i on l evel ) ; St ephen J . Schul hof er ,Sent enci ng I ssues Faci ng t he New Depart ment of J ust i ce, 5 Fed.

Sent . Rep. 225, 229 (1993) ( My r esear ch wi t h Commi ss i oner Nagelbr ought t o l i ght t he f r equent use of subst ant i al assi st ancemot i ons t o cl oak l eni ency f or sympat het i c ( usual l y whi t e)def endant s. ) .

56 See Kat e St i t h & J ose A. Cabr anes, Fear of J udgi ng:Sent enci ng Gui del i nes i n t he Feder al Cour t s 103 ( 1998) ( [ A] nuni nt ended consequence of t he Gui del i nes has been t o rob t het r adi t i onal sent enci ng r i t e of much of i t s mor al f or ce andsi gni f i cance. ) .

57 See general l y Li sa M. Far abee, Di spar ate Depar t ur es Under

t he Feder al Sent enci ng Gui del i nes: A Tal e of Two Di st r i ct s, 30Conn. L. Rev. 569, 631- 32 ( 1998) ; see al so i d. ( demonst r at i ngt hat t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s gr ant s subst ant i al assi st ancedepar t ur es much mor e f r equent l y t han t he Di st r i ct of Connect i cut ,whereas t he l at t er gr ant s depar t ur es on other gr ounds much moref r equent l y t han t he f or mer , and expl or i ng t he possi bl e r easonsf or t he di screpanci es) .

28

i t s mor al bankrupt cy, 56 and i t s i nabi l i t y to pr oduce uni f or mi t y

gi ven t he di ver si t y of i ndi vi dual ci r cui t j ur i spr udence and l egal

cul t ur e, 57 t he j udi ci al r esponse i s mut ed, and t he Depar t ment and

t he def ense bar ar e si l ent . J udges rar el y speak out si nce t he

subst ant i al assi st ance depar t ur e al l ows j ust i ce appr opr i at el y t o



29/177

58 When def ense counsel ar e heard on t hi s poi nt , t hei rpl ai nt i s usual l y, Hey, what about my guy? He cooper at ed t oo!

59 See Ashcr of t Memor andum, supr a, I . B. 2, I I . D. 2. b.

29

be done i n many cases. Def ense counsel are si l ent gi ven t hat

t hei r unequi vocal dut y i s t owar d t he def endant get t i ng a br eak. 58

The Depar t ment , of cour se, i s si l ent because i t has enj oyed

overwhel mi ng success wi t h t he Congr ess and t he peopl e i n pai nt i ng

t he ent i r e j udi ci ar y as sof t on cr i me, even t hough i t s own

r ecommendat i ons ar e the pr i mary f orce dr i vi ng down t he sent ences

t hat are t oday i mposed.

5. I gnor i ng t he Gui del i nes - Of f i ci al l y

The l i st of i nducement s t o pl ead l ai d out above i s, however ,

i nsuf f i ci ent f or the Depar t ment . I n j udi ci al di st r i cts wi t h

unusual l y hi gh vol umes of dr ug and i mmi gr at i on of f enses

( pr i mar i l y al ong our bor der wi t h Mexi co) , t he Depar t ment si mpl y

di spenses wi t h t he Gui del i nes al t oget her t o secur e mor e

f l exi bi l i t y ( and t hus mor e pl eas) . These ar e t he so- cal l ed f ast

t r ack pr ogr ams. Whi l e At t or ney Gener al Ashcrof t has at t empt ed

t o cent r al i ze and r ei n i n t hese pr ogr ams, 59 t hey st i l l exi st and

t her e i s ever y i ndi cat i on t hat t hey wi l l cont i nue t o f or t he

f or eseeabl e f ut ur e. As i mpl ement ed, t hese pr ogr ams const i t ut e a

whol esal e j et t i soni ng of t he Gui del i nes i n or der t o move the

busi ness. No wonder t he Gui del i nes ar e hel d i n such der i si on by



30/177

60 See Fr ase, supr a, at 176 ( not i ng st at es unani mousr ej ect i on of t he Gui del i nes r eal of f ense appr oach) ; see al soAmer i can Law I nst i t ut e, Model Penal Code: Sent enci ng 5 ( Report ,

Apr . 11, 2003) ( [ I ] t i s essent i al t o st at e at t he out set t hatt he pr oposal s assembl ed here owe al most nothi ng t o f ederal l aw,but are i nspi r ed by t he more numerous and more successf ulcommi ssi on- gui del i ne st r uct ur es at t he st at e l evel . ) .

61 I n 2001, 5, 928 of t he nat i on s 10, 026 non- cooper at i onr el at ed downwar d depar t ur es wer e i ssued i n t he f i ve di st r i ct sl ocat ed i n t hese r egi ons. See Sent enci ng Sour cebook, supr a, at53- 55 t bl . 26; see al so Al an Vi negr ad, The New Feder al Sent enci ngLaw, 15 Fed. Sent . Rep. 310, n. 29 ( 2003) . I n t he Sout her nDi st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a, an ast oni shi ng 50. 5 per cent of of f ender sr ecei ve non- cooper at i on r el at ed depar t ur es, wher eas t he f i gur e i n

t he East er n Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a i s 7. 9 per cent . Sent enci ngSour cebook, supr a, at 53- 55 t bl . 26. The f i gur e i n t he Di st r i ctof Ar i zona i s 62. 8 per cent . I d. I nt er est i ngl y, i n 2001 t heWest ern and Sout hern Di st r i ct s of Texas, t hough t hey had non-cooperat i on depart ur e r ates much hi gher t han el sewhere i n t heFi f t h Ci r cui t , di d not have especi al l y hi gh r at es compar ed t o t her est of t he nat i on: t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of Texas i n f act had al ower r at e t han t hi s Di st r i ct. I d. Ot her di st r i cts havesomewhat hi gh r at es of such depar t ur es i ncl ude sever al i n t heSecond Ci r cui t , wher e appel l at e j ur i spr udence and ot her f act or shave l ed t o a f ai r l y uni f or ml y hi gh l evel of non- cooper at i onr el at ed depar t ur es, see Far abee, supr a, at 591- 92, as wel l as t he

East er n Di st r i ct of Washi ngt on ( 51. 8 per cent ) . I d.

62 U. S. Const . amend. V; see Bol l i ng v. Shar pe, 347 U. S.497, 500 ( 1954) ( hol di ng t hat t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Fi f t hAmendment pl aces t he same rest r i ct i ons on act i ons by t he f ederalgover nment t hat t he Equal Protect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent hAmendment pl aces on st at e gover nment s) .

30

t he stat es, 60 when t he much vaunt ed gui del i ne uni f ormi t y ( and

t he congr essi onal command) does not even appl y i n Ar i zona,

Sout hern Cal i f orni a, New Mexi co, and Sout hern and West ern

Texas. 61 Mor e ser i ous, of cour se, i s t he const i t ut i onal command

t hat t he nat i onal l aw appl y equal l y thr oughout t he Uni t ed

St at es. 62 Of f ender s ar e pr oper l y compl ai ni ng of equal pr ot ect i on



31/177

63 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Banuel os- Rodr i guez, 215 F. 3d969, 978 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( en banc) ( hol di ng t hat di spar i t i esar i si ng f r om f ast t r ack pr ogr ams i n nei ghbor i ng di st r i ct s di dnot j ust i f y a downwar d depar t ur e) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bonnet -Gr ul l on, 212 F. 3d 692, 710 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ( si mi l ar ) , cer t .deni ed, 531 U. S. 911 ( 2000) . As no def endant i n t he pr esentcases has r ai sed any such i ssue, t he mat t er i s not f ur t herpur sued.

64 Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( c) ( 1) ( C) ; see al so Fed. R. Cr i m. P.11(c)(4).

65 See Or der of Di smi ssal of Count s on Gov t s Mot . ( Oct .13, 1993) , Uni t ed St at es v. Br est , Cr i m. A. No. 92- 10342- WGY.( Depart ment at t orneys t endered a bi ndi ng pl ea agr eement pr ovi di ng

31

vi ol at i ons i n vi ew of t he her e i t appl i es, her e i t doesn t

nat ur e of t he Gui del i nes. 63

6. I gnor i ng t he Gui del i nes - Unof f i ci al l y

Pur suant t o Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( c) ( 1) ( C) , t he Depar t ment

pr oper l y may agr ee [ wi t h t he def endant ] t hat a speci f i c sent ence

or sent enci ng r ange i s t he appr opr i at e di sposi t i on of t he case,

or t hat a par t i cul ar pr ovi si on of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, or

pol i cy st at ement , or sent enci ng f act or does or does not appl y

( such a r ecommendat i on or r equest bi nds t he cour t once the cour t

accept s t he pl ea agr eement ) . 64

Note t he dynami c here est abl i shed. Def ense counsel f avor

bi ndi ng pl ea agr eement s because t he di st r i ct j udge has no

di scr et i on what soever , save t o accept or r ej ect t he pl ea.

Depar t ment al at t or neys may use t hem f or a var i et y of r easons,

among t hemt o gr ant ext r aor di nar y benef i t s not accorded t o ot her

def endant s t ender i ng pl eas65 or , per haps, t o bend or t wi st t he



32/177

f or st r ai ght pr obat i on f or a cor r upt but cooper at i ve wi t ness whot est i f i ed agai nst a congr essman. When t he Cour t woul dn t goal ong, t he Depar t ment , havi ng al r eady made i t s deal wi t h t hewi t ness, si mpl y di smi ssed t he char ges out r i ght as i s i t spr er ogat i ve. ) . For an exampl e wher e, i n t he f ace of a j udge sr ef usal t o accept a r ecommended sent ence, t he Depar t ment achi evedi t s desi r ed end by di smi ssi ng sever al char ges, see the di scussi onof t he Fast ow case, i nf r a not e 282.

66 Such document at i on woul d be much easi er i f t he j udi ci alStat ement of Reasons f or a cr i mi nal sent ence was a publ i cdocument . I t i s not . J udi ci al Conf er ence Pol i cy St at ement ,

Repor t of t he Pr oceedi ngs of t he Uni t ed St at es J udi ci alConf er ence, Mar . 14, 2001, at 14. I n t he Di st r i ct ofMassachuset t s, by compar i son, t he St at ement of Reasons i s st i l lmade publ i c unl ess t he pr esi di ng j udge or der s i t seal ed f or casespeci f i c r easons. See Mi nut es of t he Cour t Meet i ng ( Di st r i ct ofMassachuset t s) , Sept . 4, 2001, at 4. A f ul l y sear chabl eel ect r oni c dat abase of al l publ i c j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs woul d bet he best cor r ect i ve t o such conduct .

67 Mor e speci f i cal l y, accor di ng t o t he Gener al Account i ngOf f i ce, i n 52 per cent of f ederal dr ug cases wher e mandat or ymi ni mum sent ences appl y, di st r i ct j udges i mposed sent ences bel ow

t he mandat ory mi ni mum. See U. S. General Account i ng Of f i ce,Feder al Dr ug Of f enses: Depar t ur es f r om Sent enci ng Gui del i nes andMandat or y Mi ni mum Sent ences, Fi scal Year s 1999- 2001, at 15 Fi g. 6( 2003) , at ht t p: / / www. gao. gov/ new. i t ems/ d04105. pdf . Onl y hal f oft hese depar t ures bel ow t he mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence were onaccount of subst ant i al assi st ance, so 26 per cent of dr ug casesi nvol ve downward depar t ur es f r om t he mandatory mi ni mum sentence

32

Gui del i nes. The di st r i ct j udge can st op t hi s pr act i ce, of

cour se, by r ef usi ng t o accept t he pl ea - but wi l l he? Maybe

not , i f t he agr eed sent ence accor ds wi t h t he j udge s per sonal

sense of j ust i ce. Af t er al l , t her e wi l l never be any appeal so

t he mat t er i s beyond r evi ew. No downward depart ur e wi l l ever be

r epor t ed, and t he case wi l l be r esol ved si mpl y, f i nal l y, and

compl et el y. Does t hi s happen? Whi l e t he pr act i ce i s har d t o

document , 66 st at i st i cs suggest i t s per vasi veness. 67 I t s



33/177

f or other r easons. I d. Gi ven t he l i mi t ed number of gr oundsf or depar t ur e bel ow a st at ut ory mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence, t hi s

hi gh number i s di f f i cul t t o expl ai n unl ess di st r i ct j udges ar eaccept i ng bi ndi ng pl ea agr eement s t hat evade mandat ory mi ni mumsentences wi t h some f r equency.

68 See, e. g. , Deci si ons: Uni t ed St at es v. St even Ki m,N. Y. L. J . , Oct . 24, 2003, at 17 ( [ J udge Pat t er son] denouncedCongr ess t ougheni ng of t he f eder al sent enci ng gui del i nes . . .. ) ; Fr ank O. Bowman, I I I , When Sent ences Don t Make Sense, Wash.Post , Aug. 15, 2003, at A27 ( not i ng J ust i ce Ant hony Kennedy sst at ement t o t he Amer i can Bar Associ at i on t hat f eder al sent encesar e har sher and t he Gui del i nes are l ess f l exi bl e t han t hey shoul dbe) ; Dan Herbeck & Gene Warner , Bat t l e on t he Bench: Federal

J udges Ar ound t he Nat i on - I ncl udi ng J ohn T. El f vi n Her e - - Ar eBat t l i ng J ohn D. Ashcr of t s J ust i ce Depar t ment , Buf f al o News,Feb. 20, 2004, at A1 ( di scussi ng wi despr ead j udi ci al opposi t i ont o t he Gui del i nes) ; J udge J ohn S. Mar t i n, J r . , Let J udges DoThei r J obs, N. Y. Ti mes, J une 24, 2003, at A31 ( expl ai ni ng t hat hewas r et i r i ng because he coul d no l onger i n good consci encesent ence under t he Gui del i nes r egi me) ; I an Ur bi na, New Yor k sFeder al J udges Pr ot est Sent enci ng Pr ocedur es, N. Y. Ti mes, Dec. 8,2003, at B1 ( descr i bi ng publ i c cri t i ci sm of t he Gui del i nes by NewYork di st r i ct j udges and by Mi nnesot a Chi ef Di st r i ct J udge J amesRosenbaum) ; Al an Vi negr ad, The J udi ci ar y s Response t o t hePROTECT Act , N. Y. L. J . , J an. 8, 2004, at 4 ( not i ng cri t i ci sm by

J ust i ces Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Br eyer of i ncr easi ng use ofmandat ory mi ni mumsent enci ng) ; Edward Wal sh & Dan Eggen, Ashcr of tOr der s Tal l y of Li ght er Sent ences: Cr i t i cs Say He Want sBl ackl i st of J udges, Wash. Post , Aug. 7, 2003, at A1 ( not i ngEi ght h Ci r cui t J udge Myron H. Br i ght s st at ement i n a concur r i ngopi ni on t hat r ecent changes t o the Sent enci ng Gui del i nes wi l lexacer bat e t he pr obl ems wi t h t he gui del i nes) .

33

l i kel i hood i ncr eases due t o t he ever i ncr easi ng di sr eput e of t he

ent i r e Gui del i nes st r uct ur e i n t he eyes of t he j udi ci ar y. 68

7. I gnor i ng t he Gui del i nes - Fraudul ent l y

The most r epugnant of t he Depar t ment s t act i cs i s t o l i e t o

t he Cour t i n or der t o i nduce a gui l t y pl ea. Thi s i s the pr ocess

known as f act bar gai ni ng. I t occur s when a depart ment al

at t orney swal l ows t he dr ugs or t he gun as t he case may be,



34/177

69 See U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3( a) ( maki ng i t cl ear t hat al lr el evant conduct must be consi der ed dur i ng sent enci ng) ; i d. 1B1. 8 n. 1 ( not i ng t hat t he pr ovi si on, whi ch pl aces l i mi t s on t heuse of sel f - i ncr i mi nat i ng i nf or mat i on t hat t he def endant pr ovi desas par t of an agr eement t o cooperate wi t h t he gover nment , doesnot aut hor i ze t he gover nment t o wi t hhol d i nf or mat i on f r om t hecour t ) ; i d. 6B1. 4( a) ( 2) & cmt . ( [ W] hen a pl ea agr eementi ncl udes a st i pul at i on of f act , t he st i pul at i on must f ul l y andaccur at el y di scl ose al l f act or s r el evant t o t he det er mi nat i on ofsent ence. . . . [ I ] t i s not appr opr i at e f or t he par t i es t ost i pul at e t o mi sl eadi ng of non- exi st ent f acts . . . . ) . See

al so Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 61- 67 & nn. 18- 30 ( di scussi ngt he pr eval ence and i l l egal i t y of f act bar gai ni ng) .

70 162 F. 3d 135 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) , cer t . deni ed, 526 U. S. 1152( 1999) .

71 Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 64- 66.

34

i . e. , f ai l s t o r epor t t o t he pr obat i on of f i cer i n r ender i ng i t s

descr i pt i ons of of f ense conduct ( and t hen l at er f ai l s t o br i ng t o

t he at t ent i on of t he Cour t ) r el evant evi dence t hat may af f ect t he

gui del i nes cal cul at i on i n or der t o r educe t hat cal cul at i on t o

secur e a di sposi t i on t o whi ch i t and def ense counsel have agr eed.

Thi s, of cour se, i s f l at - out i l l egal , 69 and At t orney General

Ashcrof t has pr ohi bi t ed i t i n no uncer t ai n t er ms. Thi s Cour t i s

unaware of any i nst ance where t he At t orney General has

di sci pl i ned a Depar t ment at t or ney f or engagi ng i n t he pr act i ce.

As t he pr act i ce const i t ut es a di r ect f r aud on t he Cour t , i t

i s di f f i cul t t o uncover . Fact bar gai ni ng dr ove t he di spar at e

sent ences i n Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 70 but t he Fi r st Ci r cui t

accept ed t he Depar t ment s al l t oo f aci l e expl anat i on and f ai l ed

t o expl or e t he i ssue. 71 Agai n, char ge bar gai ni ng coupl ed wi t h



35/177

72 358 F. 3d 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

73 See Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 64- 66; see al so supr anot e 26.

74 See Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 64- 66; see al so supr anot e 26.

35

pr ohi bi t ed f act bar gai ni ng dr ove t he cr uel l y di spar at e sent ences

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Thur st on, 72 but t he Cour t of Appeal s agai n

f ai l ed t o det ect i t , 73 f ocusi ng i nst ead on t he per cei ved

i nadequaci es i n t he di st r i ct cour t s sent enci ng r at i onal e. 74

Thi s Cour t has bur dened an al r eady st r ai ned probat i on of f i ce

by or der i ng pr e- pl ea pr e- sent ence r epor t s i n vi r t ual l y ever y case

as the best def ense t o i l l egal f act bar gai ni ng. The ef f or t has

bor ne f r ui t ; Wi l l i am Ol i ver o and J ason Pacheco, whose cases are

di scussed bel ow, wer e pot ent i al vi ct i ms of i l l egal f act

bar gai ni ng.

Al l of t hese t echni ques, bot h l egal and i l l egal , f ur t her t he

Depar t ment s goal : secur i ng pl ea bar gai ns i n t he over whel mi ng

number of cases i n order t o enf orce the l aw at t he cheapest

possi bl e cost and avoi d t he r i sks of havi ng t o expose the

Depar t ment s i nvest i gat i ons t o t he neut r al r evi ew of j udges and

j ur i es. That t hese t echni ques ar e evi scer at i ng t he Si xt h

Amendment s guarant ee of a j ur y of t he peopl e seems r arel y t o

occur t o t hose who pr act i ce t hem and, i f i t does, i t har dl y seems

i mpor t ant .



36/177

75 See Franci s Bacon, Of J udi cat ur e, i n Essays 316 ( 1654)( And l et no man weakl y concei ve, t hat j ust l aws and t r ue pol i cyhave any ant i pat hy; f or t hey ar e l i ke t he spi r i t s and si news,t hat one moves wi t h t he other . Let j udges al so remember, t hatSol omon s t hr one was suppor t ed by l i ons on bot h si des: l et t hembe l i ons, but yet l i ons under t he t hr one; bei ng ci r cumspect t hatt hey do not check or oppose any poi nt s of sover ei gnt y. Let not

j udges al so be i gnor ant of t hei r own r i ght , as t o t hi nk t her e i snot l ef t t o t hem, as a pr i nci pal par t of t hei r of f i ce, a wi se useand appl i cat i on of l aws. ) .

76 See supra not e 68.

77 See Mi st r et t a, 488 U. S. at 361.

36

D. The J udi ci al React i on: The Li ons Under t he Thr one75

Ar e Supi ne and Obedi ent , Set t l i ng f or Sophi st r y andSymbol i sm.

Any di scussi on of sent enci ng pol i cy i n Amer i ca t oday must

consi der t he j udi ci al r eact i on t o t he massi ve shi f t of power and

di scr et i on t o t he Depar t ment . I n one r espect - obedi ence t o t he

Congr essi onal mandat e - t hat r esponse i s preci sel y what Congr ess

and t he Amer i can peopl e expect . I n t wo r espect s, however , t he

j udi ci al r esponse has been opaque, maski ng t he r eal i t i es i n ways

t hat obscur e i nj ust i ce wi t h a veneer of pseudo- pr ocess and

pr ocedur e.

1. Obedi ence

Whi l e the dr umbeat of j udi ci al opposi t i on t o the Gui del i nes

has been ext r aor di nar i l y vocal , wi despr ead, and per si st ent , 76 t he

j udi ci ar y s act ual per f or mance af t er t he Supreme Cour t had

establ i shed t hei r consti t ut i onal i t y77 has been f ai t hf ul l y t o obey

t he wi l l of Congr ess, appl yi ng t he Gui del i nes as sensi bl y,



37/177

78 Uni t ed St at es v. J ackson, 30 F. 3d 199, 204 ( 1st Ci r .1994) .

79 See, e. g. , U. S. Gener al Account i ng Of f i ce, supr a, atApp. VI , 77 ( Comment s f r omt he J udi ci al Conf erence Commi t t ee on

Cr i mi nal Law) ( not i ng how t he GAO r epor t demonst r ates t hatj udges ar e not exerci si ng depart ure aut hor i t y i n vi ol at i on of t hel et t er or t he spi r i t of t he Sent enci ng Ref or m Act of 1984) ; seegener al l y i d. at 77- 80.

80 See i d. at 15 Fi g. 6; Sent enci ng Sour cebook, supr a, atFi g. G; see al so supr a not e 52 ( di scussi ng t he st at i st i cs) .

37

consi st ent l y, and compassi onat el y as t hei r l abyr i nt hi ne

pr ovi si ons wi l l al l ow. As J udge Br uce Sel ya so apt l y put s i t ,

when . . . t he l egi sl at i ve t r umpet sounds cl ear l y, cour t s ar e

dut y bound t o honor t he cl ar i on cal l . 78 Obedi ence t o the

const i t ut i onal expr essi on of t he Congr essi onal wi l l i s t he

hal l mar k of t he f eder al j udi ci ar y - a vi t al aspect of i t s

pr of essi onal i sm and i t s r ol e i n our syst em of gover nment .

What ever i ndi vi dual j udges may t hi nk about t he wi sdom of t he

congr essi onal choi ce, t hi s obedi ence i s as pr eval ent i n t he

sent enci ng ar ea as i n any ot her ar ea of j udi ci al compet ence. 79

I ndeed, t o Congr ess appar ent sur pr i se, i t s own i nvest i gat or s

poi nt out t hat downwar d depar t ur es f r om t he Gui del i nes ar e dr i ven

mor e by t he Depar t ment t han by any ot her sour ce. 80

2. Sophi st r y

The j udi ci ar y i s, however , consi der abl y l ess t han candi d

about how i ndi vi dual sent ences are meted out . I t seems to

sat i sf y i t sel f wi t h r ot e i ncant at i ons of l abel s t hat ar e



38/177

81 Whi l e t hi s pr act i ce i s r out i ne t hr oughout t he t wel veci r cui t s adj udi cat i ng cr i mi nal mat t er s, i t wi l l be suf f i ci ent t oci t e a f ew r ecent Fi r st Ci r cui t cases. See, e. g. , Uni t edSt at es v. Mar ks, 365 F. 3d 101, 105 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; Uni t ed St at esv. Sant os, 363 F. 3d 19, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Casas, 356 F. 3d 104, 128 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

82 Fed. R. Evi d. 1101( d) ( 3) .

83 See El i zabet h T. Lear , I s Convi ct i on I r r el evant ?, 40 UCLAL. Rev. 1179, 1202- 03 ( 1993) ; Geral d W. Heaney, The Real i t y ofGui del i nes Sent enci ng: No End t o Di spar i t y, 28 Am. Cr i m. L. Rev.161, 210 ( 1991) ; Deborah Young, Fact - Fi ndi ng at FederalSent enci ng: Why t he Gui del i nes Shoul d Meet t he Rul es, 79 Cornel l

38

meani ngf ul and powerf ul t o j udges, l awyer s, and, most

i mpor t ant l y, t he publ i c, even when t hose l abel s no l onger car r y

any descr i pt i ve f or ce i n expl ai ni ng r eal i t y. By so doi ng, t hey

r un t he r i sk of f ool i ng t hemsel ves i nt o a compl acency t hat

r educes t hei r abi l i t y t o addr ess t he qui et sl i de i nt o obl i vi on of

our pr eci ous r i ght t o t r i al by j ur y.

Consi der j ust t hese f our aspect s of pr ocedur e and sent enci ng

i n f eder al cour t s t oday:

a. I n Feder al Sent enci ng Hear i ngs, Evi dence I sNot Evi dence

Appel l at e cour t s ar e f ond of not i ng t hat t he di st r i ct j udge

makes t he cr uci al r el evant conduct det er mi nat i on pur suant t o t he

wel l known pr eponderance of t he evi dence st andard. 81 Thi s i s a

shi bbol et h. The r ul es of evi dence by t hei r expr ess t er ms do not

appl y t o sent enci ng hear i ngs. 82 I nst ead, cour t s t oday must base

t hei r concl usi ons on a mi shmash of dat a i ncl udi ng bl at ant l y sel f -ser vi ng hear say l argel y ser ved up by t he Depart ment . 83 Cour t s



39/177

L. Rev. 299, 342- 46 ( 1994) . Several comment ators have cal l ed f orappl i cat i on of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence t o Sent enci ngHear i ngs. See gener al l y, e. g. , Edwar d R. Becker & Avi vaOr enst ei n, The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence Af t er Si xteen Year s -The Ef f ect of Pl ai n Meani ng J ur i sprudence, t he Need f or anAdvi sor y Commi t t ee on t he Rul es of Evi dence, and Suggest i ons f orSel ect i ve Revi si on of t he Rul es, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 857, 885-91 ( 1992) ; Randol ph K. J onakai t , I nsur i ng Rel i abl e Fact Fi ndi ngi n Gui del i nes Sent enci ng: Why Not Real Evi dence Rul es?, 22 Cap.

U. L. Rev. 31 ( 1993) ; Young, supr a, at 301.

84 See i nf r a note 109.

85 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 336 F. 3d 67, 68-71 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hat , al t hough i t was a cl osequest i on, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i nr ef usi ng t o hol d a f ul l evi dent i ar y hear i ng bef or e enhanci ng t hedef endant s sent ence on obst r uct i on of j ust i ce gr ounds, based ont he Depar t ment s hear say r epr esent at i on t hat t he aut hor of anal l egedl y excul pat or y l et t er ( whi ch t he def endant had pr ocur ed)had r epudi at ed t he l et t er i n an i nt er vi ew wi t h t he Depar t ment ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Del gado, 288 F. 3d 49, 57 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( Sel ya,J . , concur r i ng) ( agr eei ng t hat , based on t he bi ndi ng deci si on ofan ear l i er Fi r st Ci r cui t panel , t he di st r i ct j udge was per mi t t edt o r el y on a hear say pol i ce r epor t i n det er mi ni ng whet her a cr i met o whi ch t he def endant had ear l i er pl ed gui l t y was a cr i me ofvi ol ence, but not i ng t hat he woul d hol d ot her wi se i n t he absenceof such pr ecedent ) .

39

have l i t t l e chance i ndependent l y t o r evi ew t hi s dat a ( and soon

t hey wi l l have much l ess) . 84 I ndeed, some data pr esent ed at

sent enci ng hear i ngs i s so f ar f et ched t hat t he appel l at e cour t

seems al most embarr assed t o uphol d rel i ance upon i t . 85 Yet i t

must do so, f or i n sent enci ng the t r adi t i onal nor ms s i mpl y do not

appl y. We ought not pretend otherwi se.

b. I n Feder al Sent enci ng Hear i ngs, Fact s Ar eNot Fact s

Fact f i ndi ng i n a cr i mi nal case i s gr ounded i n t he Uni t ed

St at es on const i t ut i onal bedr ock. The r i ght of conf r ont at i on of



40/177

86 U. S. Const . amend. VI .

87 5 J . Wi gmore, Evi dence 1367, at 32 ( J . Chadbour n r ev.ed. 1974) ; U. S. Const . amend. VI .

88 U. S. Const . amend. VI . But see Uni t ed St at es v.Moussaoui , 365 F. 3d 292, 313- 14 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) ( hol di ng, i n adeat h penal t y case, t hat t he government need not permi t wi t nessest he def endant cal l s t o t est i f y, i f pr ovi di ng such i nf or mat i oni mpl i cat es nat i onal secur i t y concer ns and i f t he gover nment

pr ovi des a subst i t ut e f or such t est i mony t hat does not mat er i al l ydi sadvant age t he def endant ) .

89 The most t hat can be sai d i s t hat t he di st r i ct j udge has,i n good f ai t h, dr awn cer t ai n concl usi ons by a f ai r pr eponder anceof what appear s t o be t he cr edi bl e dat a bef or e her . Thi s i s t hef or m of wor ds I now at t empt t o use dur i ng sent enci ng hear i ngs.

40

government wi t nesses, 86 t he r i ght t o cr oss exami ne ( t he gr eat est

l egal engi ne i nvent ed f or t he di scover y of t r ut h) , 87 and the

r i ght t o compul sory pr ocess88 ar e al l desi gned t o guar ant ee the

i nt egr i t y of t he f act f i ndi ng det er mi nat i on. I n shor t , cour t s

f i nd f act s based on evi dence. Under t he Gui del i nes, however , a

cr i mi nal def endant i s ut t er l y st r i pped of t hese r i ght s at

sent enci ng, even t hough det er mi nat i ons t her e made may

t heor et i cal l y doubl e or t r i pl e t he sent ence he r ecei ves upon t he

of f ense of convi ct i on. When appel l at e cour t s speak of f act s

f ound dur i ng a sent enci ng hear i ng, t her ef or e, t hey ar e gui l t y of

f ar mor e than mi snomer ; t hey ar e evoki ng a const i t ut i onal pr ocess

whi ch they must know has no pl ace i n t oday s f ederal

sent enci ng. 89

c. I ndeed, t he Gui del i nes Ar e Today NotGui del i nes at Al l



41/177

90 Cf . Mi st r et t a, 488 U. S. at 427 ( Scal i a, J . , di ssent i ng)( r ef er r i ng t o t he Sent enci ng Commi ssi on as a j uni or - var si t ycongr ess) .

91 Let t er f r om Sen. Kennedy t o Sen. Hat ch of 4/ 1/ 03. SeePar t One, Secti on I . E. 1, i nf r a.

92 See Uni t ed St at es v. Rosel l i , 366 F. 3d 58, 67 ( 1st Ci r .2004) ( descr i bi ng how r evi ew of a j udge s deci si on whet her t odepar t bel ow t he Gui del i nes r ange i s now de novo under t he FeeneyAmendment ) .

41

Fol l owi ng t he Feeney Amendment ( di scussed i n Par t One,

Sect i on 1. E bel ow) , t he so- cal l ed Gui del i nes ar e not gui del i nes

at al l , but r at her a compl et e cr i mi nal code, never enact ed by the

Congress, 90 and i n ef f ect , a mandatory mi ni mum sent enci ng

syst em. 91 As a pr acti cal , f uncti onal mat t er , di st r i ct j udges

ar e t oday af f or ded no di scr et i on t o sent ence out si de t he nar r ow

gui del i ne r ange. 92 To cal l our pr esent f eder al sent enci ng

st r uct ur e a gui del i nes syst em suggest s t hat t he di st r i ct j udge

st i l l pl ays a cent r al r ol e. She does not . Ot her t han

det er mi ni ng t he cont r ol l i ng sent enci ng f act or s ( and t hese, of

cour se, can easi l y be mani pul ated by t he Depart ment as di scussed

above) , t he di st r i ct j udge s r ol e t oday i s pur el y mechani st i c,

appl yi ng ar i t hmet i cal l y t he sent enci ng f act or s der i ved f r om dat a

l ar gel y ( al most ent i r el y) pr of f er ed by t he Depar t ment . For t hese

r easons, I have commenced r out i nel y t o cal l our sent enci ng

st r uct ur e t he so- cal l ed Sent enci ng Gui del i nes or t he

mechani st i c appr oach t o sent enci ng. Si mpl e honest y r equi r es

i t .



42/177

93 As of 1999, t her e was a 500 per cent di f f er ent i al i npuni shment between t hose who exer ci sed t hei r r i ghts and t hose whowai ved t hem and cooper at ed. Ber t hof f , 140 F. Supp. 2d at 67- 68 &n. 33 ( ci t i ng and r epr oduci ng Repor t f r om Uni t ed St at es Probat i onDep t , Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s ( Dec. 2, 1999) ) ; see al so Par t

One, Sect i on I . B, supr a.

94 See supr a Fi g. 1.

95 See Admi ni st r at i ve Of f i ce of t he U. S. Cour t s, Ci vi lSt at i st i cal Repor t i ng Gui de 3: 18 ( 1999) .

96 Schol ar s, qui t e pr oper l y, not e and quest i on t heappar ent l y del i ber at e i naccur acy i n t hi s st at i st i cal pr ot ocol oft he Admi ni st r at i ve Of f i ce. See, e. g. , Kevi n M. Cl er mont &Theodor e Ei senber g, Li t i gat i on Real i t i es, 88 Cor nel l L. Rev. 119,143 n. 131 ( 2002) .

Thi s anomal y may expl ai n t he appar ent upt i ck i n cr i mi nalt r i al s i n t he wake of At t or ney Gener al Ashcrof t s memor andumf orbi ddi ng charge bargai ni ng. See Ashcr of t Memorandum, supr a.Anecdot al l y, i t appear s t hat mor e def ense counsel ar e f i l i ngmot i ons t o suppr ess ( whi ch count as t r i al s when hear d) i n anef f or t t o br i ng t he Depar t ment back t o the bar gai ni ng t abl e.

42

d. Today, Many Feder al Cr i mi nal Tr i al s Ar e NotTr i al s at Al l

Wi t h t he Depar t ment vi si t i ng dr ast i c sanct i ons on t hose who

exerci se t hei r Si xt h Amendment r i ght 93 t o t r i al by j ur y and t he

f eder al pl ea r at e at 96. 6% and r i si ng, 94 act ual cr i mi nal t r i al s

ar e i n st eep decl i ne. The st at i st i cs mai nt ai ned by t he

Admi ni st r at i ve Of f i ce of t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t s, however , seek

t o obscur e t hi s f act by recor di ng as t r i al s any hear i ng wher e

evi dence i s r ecei ved. 95 Thus, f or f eder al cour t st at i st i cal

pur poses we count hear i ngs on mot i ons t o suppress and even

sent enci ng hear i ngs wher e test i mony i s r ecei ved as f ul l bl own

t r i al s even when t hey ar e not hi ng of t he ki nd. 96 For i ncr eased



43/177

Thi s t r end, i f i t i s t hat , appear s t o be di ssi pat i ng asDepar t ment at t or neys i n t he f i el d si mpl y i gnor e t he At t or neyGeneral s memorandum and cont i nue t o char ge bargai n. Act ualcr i mi nal t r i al s cont i nue t o decl i ne nat i onwi de.

97 An act ual cr i mi nal t r i al i s def i ned i n Massachuset t s ascommenci ng wi t h t he t aki ng of evi dence af t er j eopardy hasat t ached. Mi nut es of t he Cour t Meet i ng ( Di st r i ct ofMassachuset t s) , Nov. 7, 2003, at 3.

98 We do not di st i ngui sh bet ween act ual ci vi l and cr i mi nalt r i al s.

99 Of cour se, t o t he ext ent one measures t he pr eval ence ofcr i mi nal t r i al s by compar i ng r esol ut i on by pl ea bar gai n t or esol ut i on by t r i al , t hi s over stat ement i s i r r el evant . I t i sonl y when one i s exami ni ng st at i st i cs on t he number of cr i mi nalt r i al s hel d, wi t hout r ef er ence t o f i nal r esol ut i on of cri mi nalcases, t hat one has t o take t he over st at ement i nt o account .

43

accur acy, t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s keeps i t s own st at i st i cs

on cr i mi nal t r i al s . 97 Whi l e we have t hus f ar col l ect ed l ess t han

one year s st at i st i cs i n one di st r i ct , our r ecor ds i ndi cat e t hat

69 per cent of our t r i al s her e i n Massachuset t s98 are actual

t r i al s . I f our exper i ence i s t ypi cal , t he nat i onal stat i st i cs

over st at e t he number of cr i mi nal t r i al s by 31 per cent . 99

3. Symbol i sm

J udgi ng i s choi ce. Choi ce i s power . Power i snei t her good nor evi l , except as i t i s al l ocat ed andused.

J udgi ng i n a l egal syst em i s prof ess i onal .Pr of essi onal s, i ncl udi ng j udges, r epr esent i nt er est sother t han t hei r own. One who accept s a pr of essi onalr ol e i n a l egal syst em accept s an obl i gat i on t o conf i net he exer ci se of power wi t hi n t he l i mi t s of aut hor i t y.



44/177

100 Robert E. Keet on, Keet on on J udgi ng i n the Amer i can LegalSyst em 5 ( 1999) .

101 J ames Zagel , Money t o Burn 184 ( 2002) .

102 I d.

103 But see Memor andum f r om Assi st ant Di r ect or J ohn M.Hughes, Of f i ce of Pr

us v. jane doe

Documents