Bad Laws and Second Chances
by TChris
Serena Nunn's sad story has two happy endings. The story will sound familiar to those who haunt the criminal courts. Serena dropped out of school and started dating a drug dealer. Because she drove him around and talked to buyers who owed him money, she was charged with federal drug crimes. Despite being a first offender, Serena was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison.
The leader of the drug ring had a record that included substantial drug dealing, rape and manslaughter. He was sentenced to 7 years.
How could this happen? The leader was a serious criminal, and serious criminals are connected. He could barter information for freedom because his criminal accomplishments made him a valuable snitch. Serena wasn't a serious criminal, so she had little to trade. Does this seem fair? Only if you've ingested a hallucinogen.
Fortunately, Serena's story has two happy endings (so far): President Clinton commuted her sentence, and on May 6, she'll graduate from the University of Michigan Law School. Good for you, Attorney Nunn.
And good for Judge David Doty, who sentenced Serena. Judge Doty wrote an eight-page letter to President Clinton on Serena's behalf "that ripped the mandatory-minimum system to shreds."
In 1990, his heart went out to Nunn because of the lengthy sentence he was required to impose on her, while others in the drug ring were sentence to as little as one year. Doty wrote, "If mandatory-minimum sentencing did not exist, no judge in America, including me, would have ever sentenced Ms. Nunn to 15 years in prison based on her role in the conspiracy, her age and the fact that she had no prior criminal convictions before the instant offense."
Federal judges still cannot sentence below a mandatory minimum unless a prosecutor invites that reduction to reward snitching. After the Booker decision, federal judges should have discretion to sentence below the advisory sentencing guidelines to avoid giving the harshest sentences to the least culpable offenders, but some appellate courts think that fairness is an improper value to promote. Prof. Doug Berman highlights the problem here and here and here.
| < FBI Wants Jack Anderson's Files | Reporters File Motions to Quash Libby Subpoenas > |
