Criminal Defense Lawyers

What are mitigating factors in federal drug sentencing?

Mitigating Factors in Federal Drug Sentencing

When someone is convicted of a federal drug crime, they may face severe penalties like lengthy prison sentences. However, there are certain mitigating factors that can potentially reduce these penalties. Mitigating factors are aspects of the case or defendant’s situation that may warrant a more lenient sentence. Here are some of the main mitigating factors that may come into play in federal drug sentencing:

Minimal Role in the Offense

If the defendant played a minimal or minor role in the drug crime, this can be a mitigating factor. For example, if they were just a courier or lookout in a large drug trafficking operation, the judge may give them a lower sentence than the ringleaders or major players. The defendant’s attorney may argue that their client was not the mastermind and should not be punished as harshly.

No Prior Criminal Record

First-time offenders may receive shorter sentences than repeat offenders. A defendant with no prior convictions may argue this shows the offense was an isolated mistake and they are not a career criminal deserving a long sentence. First offenders are often viewed as good candidates for rehabilitation as well.

Addiction

If the defendant has a substance abuse problem or addiction, the judge may impose a shorter sentence and recommend treatment. The idea is to address the root cause of their criminal behavior instead of just locking them up. Completing a drug treatment program can also be made a condition of supervised release after imprisonment.

Mental Health Issues

Like addiction, a mental health condition may provide grounds for a more lenient sentence. The judge has discretion to consider if mental illness contributed to the offense. Psychiatric treatment and medication may be seen as better addressing the problem than simply punishment.

Cooperation with Authorities

Providing “substantial assistance” to the government, such as giving information about or testifying against co-conspirators, can result in a reduced sentence. Defendants who cooperate demonstrate a willingness to help rectify the harm caused by the criminal activity. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines allow judges to go below the minimum sentence if the prosecution requests a reduced penalty due to cooperation.

Aberrant Behavior

Judges may consider if the offense was an aberration that is out of character for the defendant. If they have lived a law-abiding life and the crime seems to be an isolated lapse of judgment, a judge may determine they are not a danger to society deserving a long incarceration. The defense attorney may present evidence about the defendant’s background and history of being a productive, responsible citizen.

High Education Level

A higher level of education can potentially help reduce a sentence. The rationale is that someone with, for example, a college degree may have better future prospects if given a chance at rehabilitation. Education level is sometimes considered evidence of potential contributions to society if not given a lengthy sentence.

Stable Employment History

Like education, a stable work history can indicate rehabilitative potential. Maintaining steady employment demonstrates positive qualities like responsibility that may argue for a shorter sentence. If the defendant has dependents, the judge may also consider the impact of incarceration on their family.

Disparity with Codefendants’ Sentences

If other participants in the same crime receive lighter sentences, the defendant can argue their penalty should be reduced to avoid unfair disparity. Even co-conspirators with similar culpability often receive widely varying sentences. Pointing out these discrepancies may persuade the judge to be more lenient.

Sentencing Entrapment/Manipulation

In rare cases, the defendant may claim they were improperly induced by informants or undercover agents to commit a more serious version of the offense carrying higher penalties. For example, an informant persuading someone to sell larger quantities of drugs than they would have otherwise. If the judge agrees sentencing entrapment or manipulation occurred, they may reduce the sentence.

Age

The defendant’s age can be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Courts have held that youthful age can support a lesser sentence even for adults. Young adults may be viewed as more capable of reform and rehabilitation. Advanced age can also warrant shorter sentences if the defendant is elderly and in poor health.

Other Family Circumstances

Besides having dependents, other family circumstances like being a single parent or primary caregiver can argue for a lower sentence. The defense may present evidence about the exceptional hardship imprisonment would impose on the family.

Remorse and Acceptance of Responsibility

Expressing genuine remorse for the crime and accepting responsibility for one’s actions is looked upon favorably. Judges may view it as an indication the defendant is on the path to rehabilitation and unlikely to re-offend. The sentencing guidelines allow a reduction for acceptance of responsibility through a guilty plea or other means.

Rehabilitative Efforts

If the defendant has made efforts at rehabilitation even before sentencing, like voluntarily completing a treatment program, the judge may impose a shorter sentence. Some defendants make positive life changes following arrest that can argue for leniency.

While mandatory minimum sentences limit judicial discretion in many drug cases, federal judges do still have authority to consider mitigating factors and go below guideline ranges in appropriate instances. An experienced criminal defense attorney can advise on the mitigating factors applicable in a particular case and how best to present them to persuade the judge.

Given the harshness of federal drug penalties, developing viable mitigation arguments can mean the difference between a few years versus decades behind bars for someone facing sentencing.

References

U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2018 Guidelines Manual, §5K1.1

Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Mitigating Factors in Federal Sentencing

United States Courts, Federal Public Defender Services

Congressional Research Service, Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: The 18 U.S.C. 924(c) Tack-On in Cases Involving Drugs or Violence (PDF)

United States Sentencing Commission, Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (PDF)