How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Impact Boston Federal Cases

How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Impact Boston Federal Cases

The federal sentencing guidelines can be really confusing and make sentencing super unfair sometimes. The original idea was to try to get more consistent sentences across the country. Even though judges don’t have to follow the guidelines anymore, they still kind of anchor where the judge starts when figuring out the sentence in federal court.

The guidelines get problematic during the actual sentencing because they have language that doesn’t really mean anything. Like years ago, they used language from this law called the Armed Career Criminal Act, but then the Supreme Court said part of it was too vague. So when someone qualified as a career criminal under the guidelines, their sentence got way longer, like at least 7 more years on average.

Just last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether they should throw out that same language from the guidelines like they did with the Armed Career Criminal Act. Some of the justices seemed skeptical about the guidelines in general, not just that one part. One judge asked if getting rid of the guidelines totally would make sentencing better. Others talked about how most states don’t have guidelines at all – judges just have discretion to give a sentence within the minimum and maximum set by the law.

There’s no perfect way to do sentencing. The guidelines are one attempt, but they definitely have problems that people have pointed out. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will blow up the whole guidelines system in this one case. But the questions they asked signal they might make some changes soon to give judges more flexibility.

The case this week or others could be the start of rethinking the impact of the guidelines on sentencing. Judges seem frustrated they don’t have more discretion since sentencing is their job.

If you’ve been charged with a federal crime in Boston, you need an experienced lawyer. I’m a Harvard and UVA Law grad and was a federal prosecutor. I’ve handled over 200 federal cases and never lost. Let’s talk about the details of your case and options available.

Judge-by-Judge Differences

Whether judges sentence consistently is important for equal justice under the law. Sometimes that goal is achieved, sometimes not. New data through 2020 shows big differences between judges at some courthouses but more agreement at others.

You can’t really compare judges in different cities because crimes and cases vary a lot. But looking at judges in the same courthouse who get assigned cases randomly shows if the judge impacts the sentence.

This is like how medical studies work – by randomly assigning people to groups, you can isolate the effect of one factor like a medicine. Here, it isolates the judge’s practices from other things like the crime.

Reports on each federal judge just came out comparing their prison sentences to other judges in their courthouse. Some courthouses had a pretty wide range – for example, Philadelphia versus Manhattan:

The goal isn’t for all judges to give the same sentences. But the differences are notable. This study mostly confirms what a study 10 years ago found – some courthouses have more agreement now but others have less. Changes seem to reflect the specific judges there.

Just showing differences doesn’t prove they’re unfair though. More research on why judges differ is needed. I’m making sentencing data available to other researchers to study this more.

The History of Federal Sentencing Guidelines

In the 1980s they created the sentencing guidelines to try to reduce unfair differences in sentences. At first they were mandatory but after a 2005 Supreme Court case, now they are just advisory.

Judges have to consider the guidelines but don’t have to follow them. Some key events:

• 1984 – Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act to create the US Sentencing Commission
• 1987 – Federal sentencing guidelines took effect
• 2005 – Supreme Court made guidelines advisory in US v. Booker[5]
• 2010 – Court said guidelines couldn’t be mandatory increased based on acquitted conduct, US v. Watts

There are no perfect solutions. The guidelines try to make sentencing more consistent but have flaws. It seems the impact may change soon based on the Supreme Court.

How Guidelines Work in Federal Cases

The guidelines provide a starting point for the sentence by giving a range based on:

• The crime committed
• Criminal history of the defendant
• Any circumstances that might justify increasing or decreasing the sentence

For example, say a guideline for bank robbery recommends 30-37 months. The judge can give a sentence anywhere from probation up to the maximum set by law, like 20 years. But the guidelines anchor them to that 30-37 month range.

Sometimes the ranges are vague or based on things the Supreme Court later rejected. There are many ways the guidelines impact sentences:

• Career offender status often doubles sentences[1]
• Acquitted conduct can still increase sentences[5]
• Consecutive sentencing for firearms[5]
• Mandatory minimums interact with guidelines
• Departures from the guidelines[4]

It’s complicated! If you’re facing federal charges in Boston, having an experienced lawyer is crucial to navigating the guidelines and getting the best outcome. I have extensive knowledge of how the guidelines work from both the prosecution and defense side.

State Sentencing vs Federal

Most states don’t use sentencing guidelines – Massachusetts included[6]. Judges have a lot more discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory minimum and maximum based on the specific case and defendant. They look at things like:

• Victim impact statements
• Defendant’s background
• Rehabilitation needs
• Mitigating factors

The federal system is much more rigid with the guidelines. But even within that, an experienced lawyer can argue for the most favorable interpretation and sentencing analysis.

If you or a loved one are facing federal charges in Boston, I can help. My insider experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney gives me unique skills to fight for the best outcome possible. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a free consultation.

Sentencing is complex, but you don’t have to go through it alone. Together we can develop an effective strategy to present your best case.