Snitch[1], a movie dealing with mandatory
minimum sentencing was released on the big screen last month. The movie was based on true events
surrounding the lives of James Settembrino[2] and his son Joey
Settembrino[3]. The movie depicts a situation where eighteen
year old Jason Matthew was an unwilling participant in a drug operation. Jason’s friend set him up by sending him a large
amount of illegal drugs through the mail.
When Jason retrieved the package he was arrested and charged with the distribution
of narcotics. Jason was facing up to thirty
years in prison. John Matthews, Jason’s
father, agreed to become a snitch and set up drug dealers for the government in
order to reduce his son’s sentence.
While the movie arguably involved bad acting and a poor portrayal of our
criminal justice system, it did create a platform for the discussion of
mandatory minimum sentencing.
The
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 implemented mandatory minimum sentencing for certain
drug offenses. The mandatory minimum
sentencing guidelines removed the judge’s discretion in sentencing. Thereby, removing the judge’s ability to use
individualized sentencing based on mitigating factors. Mitigating factors are facts or circumstances
that lessen the culpability of a defendant such as the absence of a prior
criminal record, minimal involvement in the crime, the defendant’s age, and
past abuse or neglect. For example, in
the movie Snitch, the teen was charged with a certain weight of drugs which
carried a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Therefore, regardless of the teen’s level of
involvement in the drug operation, the judge would have to sentence him to a
minimum of ten years in prison.
Judges
were eventually given their sentencing discretion back when the
Supreme Court of the United States rendered the federal sentencing guidelines advisory
in its 2005 decision for United States v. Booker.[4] However, judges rarely utilize this
power. Instead, judges continue
to use the federal sentencing guidelines.[5]
There
are two reasons why Booker has not
made mandatory minimum sentences a thing of the past: first, judges are still
required to calculate sentences based on the guidelines and second, there is an
appellate presumption that the sentence calculated based on the guidelines is
reasonable. Only after the judge
calculates the sentence based on the guidelines can the judge determine whether
to depart from the guidelines in light of the circumstances and facts presented
in the case. In Rita v. United
States[6], the Supreme Court of the
United States held a federal appellate court can apply a presumption
of reasonableness to sentences that are within the sentencing guideline range
and the Court admitted that this presumption may encourage judges to sentence
within the guidelines. After calculating
the sentence based on the guidelines and with the knowledge of the appellate
presumption of reasonableness, judges are more inclined to just sentence the
defendant within the guidelines that they just calculated.
The only available protection to
defendants like Jason is the Safety Valve.
The Safety Valve
is currently the only sure way for a person under similar circumstances to
avoid a harsh sentence. The safety valve provision allows a judge to ignore
statutory minimum sentences if a defendant meets five requirements. The defendant must (1) not have more than one
criminal history point; (2) not have used violence or possessed a firearm
during commission of the offense; (3) not have killed or seriously injured
another person; (4) not have been a leader or manager in the offense or be
involved in a continuing criminal enterprise; and (5) have truthfully provided
the government with all information. The
fifth element is generally the only contested element.
Meeting
the fifth requirement under the Safety Valve[7] can be extremely problematic
for people in Jason’s situation because they generally lack information about
the drug operation. The obligation of
truthful and complete disclosure under the safety valve provision includes all
information, even information that is not relevant or useful. This provides no guidelines regarding the
level of information a person must provide; thereby, making it easy to unfairly
deny eligibility for the safety valve for failing to provide irrelevant and
unrelated information. Additionally, under
the safety valve, the defendant has an obligation to volunteer information even
if the government does not question them about that specific information. Moreover, fear does not excuse a defendant’s
obligation of full disclosure under the safety valve provision. There are no exceptions for defendants that
refuse to give up information about co-conspirators out of fear for their
safety.
Even
though the federal sentencing guidelines are now considered advisory, harsh
sentencing for first time non-violent drug offenders remains a problem and
sadly there are numerous teens, young adults, and women that are currently
serving harsh prison sentences due to situations similar to the one depicted in
the movie. Unfortunately, most of these
people do not have a father willing to work with the government as a snitch to
reduce their sentences. Instead, after
exhausting all possible post-conviction relief efforts with the courts their
only hope is clemency.
Tonya
Davis
Blogger,
Criminal Law Brief
No comments:
Post a Comment