Hearing on Booker and FanFan Thursday

It's a busy day Thursday at the House Judiciary Committee. In addition to the Immigration subcommittee taking up the Real ID Act, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold an oversight hearing on "The Implications of the Booker/Fanfan Decisions for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines."

Topics of Discussion:

  • What is the likely impact of the Booker decision to the federal criminal justice system?
  • How will federal judges exercise their discretion to ensure consistency and fairness?
  • Is legislation needed?
  • How would such changes impact public safety?
  • What role, if any, should the United States Sentencing Commission continue to play in promulgating “advisory” sentencing guidelines?

This could be dangerous. We do not need new legislation at this time. We need to see how judges exercise their new discretion before we take it away. Of course, the Justice Department would like to make every crime have a mandatory minimum. We have to stop that from happening. Here's tomorrow's witness list:

Hon. Christopher A. Wray, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Hon. Ricardo H. Hinojosa, United States District Judge, Chairman, United States Sentencing Commission; Mr. Daniel P. Collins, Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olsen; and Professor Frank O. Bowman III, Indiana University School of Law.

Beware of Bowman and his proposed fix, one he testified to Congress about at the July hearing:

Assuming that one is unwilling to confer increased sentencing discretion on judges, even for a short and experimental period, I believe that the Guidelines structure can be preserved essentially unchanged with a simple modification – amend the sentencing ranges on the Chapter 5 Sentencing Table to increase the top of each guideline range to the statutory maximum of the offense(s) of conviction.

Under Bowman's proposal, offenses with a ten year statutory maximum that currently have a guideline range of 12-18 months would have a range of 12 - 120 months.

Ron Weich, with whom I almost always agree, testified at the July hearing as well. He said of Bowman's proposal:

I consider the Bowman proposal to be ingenious but imbalanced. In effect it is a half-advisory system. .... Such a system transforms the guidelines into a web of “soft” minimum sentences, preferable to mandatory minimums of course but lacking the corresponding protection against unjustifiably lengthy sentences.

Sentencing Commission Chair (Hon.) Ricardo H. Hinojosa's prepared testimony for tomorrow is here. It seems like he opposes the Bowman proposal, or any legislative fix now, as well. He has some early post-Booker sentencing stats to back him up:

This very early preliminary data since Booker seems to indicate that courts are sentencing pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the overwhelming majority of cases. Only 7.8 percent of the cases appear to be sentenced below, and only 1.3 percent appeal to be sentenced above, the applicable guideline sentencing range based upon sentencing authority established in Booker. Therefore, courts sentenced pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines system as a whole, including upward and downward departure policy statements contained in the Guidelines Manual, in 90.9 percent of the cases analyzed for this period.

Prosecutors, of course, like the Bowman fix.

As always, Law Prof Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy has more. He has been invited to speak on the cases at the Sentencing Commission hearing next week.

< White House Backs 'Real ID Act' | Sentencing Guideline and Mandatory Minimum Fixes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Re: Hearing on Booker and FanFan Thursday (none / 0) (#1)
    by BigTex on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:29:56 PM EST
    Try as I might, it's difficult t' be concerned about what th' Congress will do regardin' th' cases. I'e said it before, and will say it again, TChris did an excellent job. I even asked TL t' point me in th' direction o' th briefs filed t' try t' understand th' reasonin' behind th' arguments made. Havin' said that, TChris, with all due respect, knew exactley what he was doin', and th' risk he was runnin' by arguin' like he did before th' USSC. This isn't a slam against him, but he went into this endevor open eyed, and is gettin' th' expected result. Th' timin' may be a bit different, but it was a relative certanity that Congress would take up th' issue. If th' system turns out fer th' worse, and gut feelin' says that it will, then it appears that in th' attempt t' win th' battle he has given th' other side a chance fer a major gain in impostin' a harsher sentencin' guidelines. Higher mandatory minimums are a realistic possibility. I've asked before, but have recieved no answer, so will ask again. Why run th' risk o' higher sentences fer future criminals? This would seem t' stand contrary t' what you stand for. This isn't a criticism, but a genuine question. I do respect th' doin' what is best fer th' client at th' moment, but seems like this is goin' t' hurt all involved in th' future.

    Re: Hearing on Booker and FanFan Thursday (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:40:03 PM EST
    I watch the so called Hearing and saw a full cover-up of that corrupt line of political propaganda, in one case I heared five down "right" lies. But this is a third world government and its common non truth is that great lie. in other words see the myth and see what corruption is and how it works in our program government. if you can watch hitler's youth to see how people can fall for this kind of lies. by the way who got the 350 million and where is it now?