Posts

Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Federal Court

/in , , , , , /by

by John Lovell

If you’ve been charged with a federal crime in the state of Georgia, many federal crimes require a “mandatory minimum” sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences reflect a “one-size-fits-all” form of justice. It is the legislative and executive branches of the government imposing arbitrary sentences without information pertaining to the person convicted or the specifics of the crime. Mandatory minimum sentences strip the judge hearing the case from deciding what is a just and fair sentence.* Mandatory minimum sentences range from 2 years to life without parole. Families Against Mandatory Minimums has compiled a list of crimes and mandatory minimums. These mandatory minimum sentences are not just unique to federal crimes in Georgia, but are mandatory all across the country.

There are some ways to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. First and foremost, don’t commit a crime that exposes you to man mins! Obvious, right? If you are charged, seek an attorney who is familiar with federal law. I have seen many an attorney counsel a client to plea guilty, unaware of the mandatory minimum sentence. I have seen this where a life sentence was imposed. There are few circumstances where a person would voluntarily agree to be sentenced to life in prison, particularly for a drug offense.

Also, it may be possible to negotiate a plea to a charge that does not require a mandatory minimum sentence.

Finally, learn whether an exception applies that allows the judge to NOT impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Next month I’ll write about the most common exception under federal law, the “safety valve.”

*One of many examples: I had the privilege of representing a young man on appeal who received a mandatory life sentence for delivering drugs. There was no dispute but that he was a “mule.” I did not represent him at trial but read the transcript of the sentencing hearing where the conservative, George W. Bush appointed judge, described the mandatory sentence as “savage, cruel and unusual.” I filed a federal habeas motion and was able to get the young man’s sentence reduced to a term of years where he will, in the coming years, be free and not lose his life to a mandatory minimum sentence.

Sentencing Guidelines in Federal Court in Criminal Cases

/in , , , , /by

Perhaps the biggest difference between defending a criminal case in federal court versus trial courts in Georgia is the sentencing guidelines. The federal sentencing guidelines manual is complex, it includes over 500 pages of rules and formulas.

Often, to determine whether to go to trial, a person accused of a federal crime must be informed of the likely outcome of a plea and of trial. This is how one makes an informed decision. I have practiced as a federal prosecutor and private attorney since 2000. I have seen changes that have significantly affected the sentencing guidelines. The most significant change came in 2005 when the Unites States Supreme Court found that the guidelines would no longer be deemed mandatory (the “Booker” case). Prior to Booker, judges were largely compelled to follow the guidelines. Federal judges lacked discretion to determine what is a fair sentence. Lawyers were left to argue for a sentence within a narrow “guideline range.”

Today, federal judges have discretion and the lawyers advocating for clients are critical. A lawyer who has mastered the guidelines must first strive to place a client at the lowest possible guideline level. Then, the skilled attorney can argue for a “reasonable sentence” below the sentencing guideline range.

If you’d like to read the federal sentencing guidelines for yourself, they may be found at https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines.

The sentencing guidelines are one of the two most critical factors in determining what a sentence will likely be. The other is mandatory minimum sentences. I will discuss that in my next blog.

Trials in Federal Court

/in , , , /by

by John Lovell

For my first blog with Peach State Lawyers, I’ll address trials in federal court. Because every client is cloaked in a presumption of innocence, I start with the view that the government has made an error in charging my client. My concern is based on my experience – the last three cases I tried in federal court resulted in acquittals for all or the most serious charges. The three trials resulted in acquittals for 1) murder and a gun possession charge, 2) two counts of attempted murder and a parallel gun possession charge for each count, and 3) four counts alleging the production of child pornography.

All three clients knew they were innocent of these charges and told me they wished to go to trial. After evaluating the government’s cases, I agreed with them and prepared for trial. The murder acquittal is an example of how we defend serious charges. In this case, we had more than a mere attack on the credibility of the government’s witnesses, we put up a case for innocence that was stronger than the federal government’s case. Together with my investigator, we discovered the person who committed the murder. We found witnesses who saw the murder and they were more credible than the “snitches” who testified with hopes of getting themselves out of trouble.

Not every case is appropriate for trial. However, a skilled attorney advises a client whether the case is triable.

When searching for an attorney in federal court, ask direct questions such as:
• How many cases have you handled in the courthouse where my case will be heard?
• How many trials have you represented a client as first chair (not as an assistant)?
• What were the outcomes of the cases you tried?

If an attorney tells you of terrific outcomes, ask to see proof. It is your duty as a person defending his freedom to find out which attorneys are marketing geniuses and which are skilled trial attorneys (some are both). The attorney focused on marketing may not have the skills to represent you in court. Even if the case is not a case that should be tried, you do not want an attorney negotiating for you who has a reputation of avoiding trials. You want an attorney who brings credibility to the table! After all, this may be the most important decision you make.