Quotes from Current/Former Prosecutors

QUOTES FROM CURRENT/FORMER PROSECUTORS

Bloomberg, Jan. 12, 2005, U.S. Judges Get Leeway to Reduce Criminal Sentences (Update 6)

``It probably will create additional leverage for defense counsel in negotiating agreements,'' said B. Todd Jones, a former U.S. attorney in Minnesota who is now a lawyer at Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis. ``They know they have two bites at the apple now'' -- with prosecutors and judges.

Knight Ridder Newspapers, Jan. 12, 2005, By Stephen Henderson, Supreme Court says judges not bound by sentencing guidelines

"The court, by fiat or constitutional interpretation, has now created a system of advisory guidelines, so what we have now is essentially unconstrained judicial sentencing," said Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Bowman noted that for years, many federal judges have complained that the guidelines left them too little flexibility in determining sentences, and Wednesday's ruling might seem to be what they wanted.

"But I think they'll come to regret what has happened here, because it's something that's far more likely to provoke a response from the Department of Justice and Congress that they'll find unpleasant."

Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray, who heads the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said government officials were encouraged that the court didn't strike down the guidelines, but disappointed that they weren't sustained as mandatory.

"To the extent that the guidelines are now advisory ... the risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent," Wray said.

USA Today, Jan. 12, 2005, By Joan Buskupic, Sentencing ruling’s impact uncertain

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Christopher Wray said the Justice Department would turn to Congress for a possible change in the sentencing law, as it was re-crafted by the Breyer decision. Wray would not say whether the department will ask Congress to limit judges' discretion to impose lighter sentences than what was required under the sentencing rules.

Wray said the rules "have helped reduce crime by ensuring that criminal sentences take violent offenders off the streets

The Detroit Free Press, Jan 13, 2005, By Gina Holland, Judges Deal With Sentencing Rules Fallout

"Defendants are happy for the moment, but they're going to be disappointed. Previously sentenced defendants are not going to get much out of this," said Craig Bradley, a former prosecutor who teaches law at Indiana University

The New York Times, Jan. 13, 2005, By Carle Hulse and Adam Liptak, New Fight Over Controlling Punishments Is Widely Seen

"We are disappointed that the decision made the guidelines advisory in nature," Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Wray said in a statement. "District courts are still required to consult the federal sentencing guidelines, and any sentence may be appealed by either defense counsel or prosecutors on the grounds that it is unreasonable. To the extent that the guidelines are now advisory, however, the risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent."

The Detroit Free Press, Jan. 13, 2005, by the Associated Press, Supreme Court ruling delays Ann Arbor case: Justices’ decision throws out federal sentencing guidelines

Christopher Wray, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division, said the guidelines have ensured that "similar defendants who commit similar crimes receive similar sentences. Because the guidelines are now advisory, the risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 13, 2005, By Torsten Ove, Jurists here reacting favorably: Discount prospect of inconsistent sentencings

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, who attended a news conference about the ruling yesterday in Washington, D.C., said the Justice Department was pleased that the guidelines weren't tossed out but disappointed that they are now only advisory.

"Certainly the risk does exist that sentences will be more inconsistent and disparate as a result of this opinion," Buchanan said.

The Oregonian, Jan. 13, 2005, By Ashbel S. Green, Supreme Court 5-4 ruling scraps mandatory sentencing guidelines: The decision returns discretion to judges in sentencing while upholding the guidelines generally

"We have destroyed the guidelines," said Charles Turner, former U.S. attorney for Oregon. "We're right back to the system we had before."

The San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 13, 2005, By Bob Egelko, Justices’ ruling may bolster state’s law on sentencing: California gives judges power to make own findings

Dave LaBahn, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association, agreed. "I don't believe that this decision affects us,'' he said. "We have a discretionary system.''

John McKay, the U.S. attorney for Western Washington, said, "The full impact of this decision will not be known until we see how our distinguished federal bench uses the additional discretion created by this opinion." He said the ruling probably would not be applied retroactively to those cases in which "the conviction has long since become final."

The Tribune-Herald, Jan. 13, 2005, By Cindy v. Culp and Tommy Witherspoon, Area well poised in wake of Supreme Court sentencing decision

Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, said he needs more time to digest the high court's ruling. But it doesn't appear "the sky is falling," he said.

"What it does is free up judges to do what they want based on the evidence and how they feel about the defendant and that particular case," Sutton said. "..Most of the judges are reasonable and fair and they can apply harsh punishments when the cases warrant them and more lenient ones when they don't."

Mark Frazier, an assistant U.S. district attorney in Waco, agrees with both Judge Smith and Sutton, saying the way his office has approached cases since the Supreme Court's initial ruling last summer will spare it a lot of the problems other offices might see.

"I think we're in very good shape since we've been taking precautionary steps since Blakely," Frazier said. "We can now move forward on our cases instead of having to deal with a flood of them coming back."

The State, Jan. 13, 2005, By Gina Holland, Judges Deal With Sentencing Rules Fallout

The Washington Times, Jan. 13, 2005, By Jerry Seper, High Court voids ‘mandatory’ sentencing

"Chaos will reign in federal courthouses," predicted Kirby Behre, a former federal prosecutor who practices law in Washington. He said judges must decide how to respond to the Supreme Court decision, and prosecutors and defense lawyers will argue over it.

The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 13, 2005, By Stephanie Hanes, High court upsets rule on sentencing: Evidence that affects term must be presented to jury; Federal guidelines debated; Decision might open door to rollback of sentences

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Christopher A. Wray said in a statement yesterday that the mandatory guidelines correctly limited judicial discretion and assured "similar treatment of defendants with similar criminal records who committed similar criminal conduct."
"In addition, the guidelines allow judges to target longer sentences to especially dangerous or recidivist criminals," he said.

The Denver Post, Jan. 13, 2005, By Alicia Caldwell, Justices: “Mandatory guidelines” unconstitutional

William Leone, acting U.S. attorney for Colorado, said the sentences in about 70 percent of the cases that his office handled involved consideration of such facts, commonly called aggravating and mitigating factors.

Leone said he didn't expect a massive overturning of sentences. He said he believes the court did not mean the decision to apply retroactively.

"I would not anticipate any wholesale revision or reversal of sentences," Leone said

The Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 13, 2005, By Natasha Korecki and Abdon Pallasch, Court gives judges last word on sentences

U.S. prosecutors, though, believe the opinion does away with guidelines that led to "fair, tough, uniform, predictable and proportionate" sentences, according to Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray. "The risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent," he said.

The Courier-Journal, Jan. 13, 2005, By Deborah Yetter, Mandatory sentencing rules eased: Justices’ decision will fuel appeals

"The federal sentencing guidelines have put the public's safety first," Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray said.

David Huber, U.S. attorney in Louisville, yesterday called the Supreme Court ruling "troublesome" and said in a statement that the guidelines have resulted in more consistent sentences. Huber said his prosecutors would continue to urge judges to use the sentencing guidelines.

The Journal Star, Jan. 13, 2005, By Andy Kravetz, Supreme Court says judges not bound by sentencing guidelines

U.S. Attorney Jan Paul Miller says he doesn't see the decision as a win for either prosecution or defense attorneys. Rather, he thinks, a federal sentencing hearing will more closely resemble a sentencing at the Peoria County Courthouse, where two sides argue to a judge what a sentence should be.

"What this means is that both sides will have to step up their advocacy at sentencing," Miller said. "Here's what I think is going to develop. The jumping off point will start at the guidelines where the judge will look at the guidelines, and the two sides could argue whether or not to follow the guidelines."

The News Journal, Jan. 13, 2005,Mandatory sentencing dealt a blow: Supreme Court decision will clear a backlog of high-profile Delaware cases

"This is one of the most important and anticipated decisions in federal criminal law in the last 30 years," said U.S. Attorney for Delaware Colm F. Connolly. "The guidelines had been upheld as constitutional and defined the federal criminal justice system since the mid-1980s."

Connolly, who was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, said a "legislative fix" from Congress may soon reinstate all or part of the system.

The Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 14, 2005, By Karen Abbott, Supreme Court ruling hits home: Sentencing decision prompts confusion in federal courtrooms

But acting Colorado U.S. Attorney William Leone said he expects a flurry of sentencing appeals to quickly die down, once a few decisions are rendered to answer questions about how to apply the new ruling.

Leone said prosecutors were disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't keep the guidelines mandatory.

"Prosecutors generally favor the principle that like defendants should be treated in a like manner," Leone said.

"Most judges will follow those guidelines most of the time," Leone predicted, "so there will still be some uniformity there."

The Birmingham News, Jan. 14, 2005, By Val Walton, Sentencing ruling could prompt more appeals

Doug Jones, a former U.S. attorney now in private practice, said the ruling will create confusion because of different interpretations.

"It seems like this was a patchwork way to salvage the guidelines," Jones said.

The State, Jan. 15, 2005, By J.R. Gonzales, Lifting of sentencing constraints causes stir: S.C. court officials, inmates ponder impact of ruling that unties juries’ hands

Former U.S. Attorney Pete Strom wasn’t a fan of the sentencing guidelines. It made it difficult to seek lenient sentences compared to the state judicial process.

“I didn’t like them when I was a prosecutor and I didn’t like them when I was a defense attorney,” Strom said, who was U.S. attorney from 1993 to 1996. “My hands would be tied as a prosecutor in cases where I wanted to help someone and give them a break and in cases where I wanted to punish them.”

Strom said that if the judges were competent enough to be appointed by the president, then they are qualified enough to hand out appropriate sentences.

“You put faith in the prosecutors and the judge,” he said.

The Forum of Fargo, Sat. Jan 15, 2005, By Jeff Zent, Ruling has F-M law field buzzing

Calling the guidelines a “great road map to reasonableness,” Wrigley said he expects judges will continue to consult the guidelines and largely follow them.

He said mandated guidelines improved sentencing fairness and helped reduce violent crime in the United States.

The U.S. attorney’s office has prepared for the high court’s ruling by changing the way it prosecutes cases, Wrigley said.

Instead of leaving trial judges to consider certain evidence for sentencing, prosecutors are presenting the information to juries, he said.

“We play in the field they give us,” Wrigley said. “We will continue to seek to wring the most justice out of every case.”