Criminal Defense Lawyers

Safety Valve Strategies When Facing Both State and Federal Charges

Navigating Safety Valve Provisions with State and Federal Charges

Facing criminal charges at both the state and federal level can be an incredibly daunting and stressful situation. The stakes are high, with lengthy mandatory minimum sentences on the table, and the complexities of dealing with two separate court systems make things even more complicated.However, there are certain legal provisions, known as “safety valves,” that can provide critical sentencing relief in appropriate cases. Specifically, federal law contains a safety valve statute allowing judges to impose less than mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent drug offenses. Some states have analogous statutes as well.Understanding how to navigate these safety valve provisions across state and federal jurisdictions requires a nuanced strategy and expert guidance. In this article, we’ll break down the key considerations for developing an effective safety valve approach when facing charges in multiple courts.

Overview of Federal Safety Valve

Enacted in 1994 after recognition that mandatory minimums were overly harsh in some cases, the federal safety valve statute is found at 18 USC Section 3553(f). It allows judges to sentence certain nonviolent drug offenders below the mandatory minimums prescribed by statute and within the standard Federal Sentencing Guidelines.To qualify for safety valve relief, federal law sets out five requirements the defendant must meet:

• Minimal criminal history (no more than 1 criminal history point under sentencing guidelines)
• Non-violent offense (no violence, credible threats of violence, possession of dangerous weapons, etc.)
• Lower level role (not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor)
• No prior safety valve benefit
• Full disclosure to prosecutors before sentencing

If those five criteria are satisfied, the judge then has discretion to disregard any statutory mandatory minimums and impose a guidelines-range sentence instead. This can reduce prison exposure by years in serious federal cases.However, as this analysis shows, federal prosecutors often fight safety valve eligibility. Judges also have broad discretion to deny it even if the letter of the law is met. So obtaining relief requires an experienced advocate.

State Safety Valve Laws

Unlike the federal statute, safety valve laws among the states are far less uniform. Only around 15 states have enacted such provisions to date. The requirements and application vary widely jurisdiction to jurisdiction.For example, Arizona’s safety valve statute only applies to first time drug possession offenses under very limited circumstances. The sentencing court must make special findings that incarceration would be an undue hardship based on mitigating factors. Judges retain broad discretion to deny relief.Meanwhile, states like Connecticut take a much broader approach. Their 2021 safety valve enactment closely mirrors the federal law, allowing judges to divert a wide range of nonviolent drug offenders from mandatory minimums. The standards are clear and uniform.So in states like Arizona with narrow safety valve laws, prosecutors have an easier time restricting eligibility and judges denying relief. But in states like Connecticut with legislation similar to the federal standard, the dynamics may align more closely with federal practice.

Crafting an Integrated Safety Valve Strategy

When facing state and federal charges concurrently, developing a coordinated strategy across both jurisdictions is critical to mitigate overall sentencing exposure. The safety valve analysis requires particular care and precision.The threshold step is thoroughly analyzing the precise charges and sentencing landscape:

• What are the maximum penalties?
• Do statutory mandatory minimums apply?
• What enhancements or aggravators are in play that could increase prison time?
• What mitigators might reduce exposure?
• How do sentencing guidelines operate in each jurisdiction?

With a firm grasp on the sentencing stakes, a detailed assessment of safety valve eligibility can follow. Key questions include:

• Does the federal case qualify for 18 USC 3553(f) relief based on the five statutory requirements?
• Does the state case fall under any existing safety valve law?
• If the state has no such statute, is there another avenue for judges to diverge from mandatory minimums?
• Can charges be negotiated to enhance safety valve eligibility?

This analysis then informs a negotiating strategy with prosecutors across jurisdictions. Concessions can be offered on certain charges to improve the safety valve posture while still achieving an acceptable overall outcome.For example, pleading to a federal drug conspiracy at the expense of more serious state charges may meet the federal safety valve requirements. Even if the state charges still carry high mandatory minimums absent similar state legislation, the reduction in federal exposure may balance out the final sentence.Throughout this process, close collaboration with defense counsel in both jurisdictions is imperative. Consistent communication ensures everyone is working together towards the same overarching sentencing plan.And critically, the defense team should present a united front at each sentencing hearing to emphasize the defendant’s eligibility and rehabilitation potential. Judges respond better to clear, coordinated advocacy rather than mixed messages.