Here are some key excerpts which focus on the none-too-subtle bias in the guidelines and in judges' sentencing attitudes for pleading guilty rather than going to trial:
What judges really want to hear is an expression of contrition, word that the defendant is sorry for any harm caused while promising never to engage in such misconduct again. For those who plead guilty, like Mr. Caspersen and Mr. Thompson, the acknowledgment of guilt puts them in a much better position with the court because they can avoid the perception of trying to get away with something or planning the next crime.
Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, former aides to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey who were convicted last Friday for their role in shutting access lanes to the George Washington Bridge as political payback for a New Jersey mayor who did not endorse the governor’s re-election effort in 2013, are in a difficult position when their sentencing occurs next year. By testifying that they did nothing wrong and continuing to proclaim their innocence, they are now locked into a position that prevents them from acknowledging that their conduct was illegal and asking for leniency.
Under the sentencing guidelines, the two defendants could easily face a recommended prison term of more than four years for the corruption charges. Prosecutors may ask the court to find they committed perjury by testifying that they were unaware of any scheme to engage in misconduct on behalf of the governor, which could push the potential punishment even higher.
They have suffered the same loss of their career and social status as Mr. Caspersen and Mr. Thompson, but by going to trial, any claim they might make that they have “suffered enough already” is likely to fall on deaf ears.
Sentencing is certainly an art, not a science, despite the attempt at precision in the loss calculations in the sentencing guidelines. Judges are left with making a decision based on what they see in the defendant in front of them, in the hope that the punishment will be perceived as fair. Like it or not, that is the system we have, even if it leaves the public unsatisfied with a penalty that can be considered too lenient — or too harsh.Obviously, the Guidelines offer a 2 or, usually, 3 level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. But, once the Guidelines calculations are made, the judge can determine the sentence based on sentencing factors not adequately addressed in the advisory Guidelines. This is called Booker discretion, named for the case, United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005), which untethered sentencing judges from the principal constraints of the Guidelines calculations. So, not only will a guilty plea get the Guidelines calculation starting point reduced, the contrition and remorse evidenced with the guilty plea can lead to a further Booker variance downward.
Significant prior blog entries on Judge Rakoff, in reverse chronological order, are:
- The Vanishing Federal Criminal Jury Trial (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 8/7/16). here.
- Judge Jed Rakoff Reviews Brandon Garrett's Book on Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations (Federal Tax Crimes 2/10/15), here.
- The Honorable Jed Rakoff on Why Innocent People Plead Guilty (Federal Tax Crimes 11/3/14), here.
- Judge Rakoff Speaks on the Dearth of Prosecutions from the Financial Crisis (Federal Tax Crimes 12/18/13), here.
- Judge Rakoff, the Wegelin judge, Is Interviewed on the U.S. Initiative Against Swiss Banks (Federal Tax Crimes 12/12/13), here.
- Wegelin Sentenced (Federal Tax Crimes 3/5/13), here.
- Judge Rakoff''s Criticism of the Mechanics of the Sentencing Guidelines (Federal Tax Crimes 12/7/12), here.