Mr. Bush's America - any SLC local scoop on this?

[Arnold Pants]

The New York Times, September 12, 2004

Long Term in Drug Case Fuels Debate on Sentencing
By ADAM LIPTAK

Weldon H. Angelos, a 25-year-old producer of rap records, will be sentenced Tuesday in federal court in Salt Lake City for selling several hundred dollars in marijuana on each of three occasions, his first offenses. He faces 63 years in prison.

Laws that set mandatory minimum sentences require 55 of the 63 years because Mr. Angelos carried a gun while he sold the drugs.

"It would appear effectively to be a life sentence," the judge, Paul G. Cassell of Federal District Court there, wrote in a request to the prosecution and the defense for advice about whether he has any choice but to send the man to prison forever.

Judge Cassell, a brainy, conservative former law professor, surveyed the maximum sentences for other federal crimes. Hijacking an airplane: 25 years. Terrorist bombing intending to kill a bystander: 20 years. Second-degree murder: 14 years. Kidnapping: 13 years. Rape of a 10-year-old: 11 years.

He noted that Mr. Angelos would face a far shorter sentence in the courts of any state. In Utah, prosecutors estimate that he would receive five to seven years.

The Angelos case may provide a glimpse of the future. The constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines was called into doubt by a Supreme Court decision in June, but that thinking does not extend to laws that set mandatory minimum sentences.

If the court strikes down the guidelines this fall, as many expect, judges will have much greater discretion, to the dismay of many prosecutors and politicians who worry that judges are not tough enough on crime.

Sentencing guidelines are set by the United States Sentencing Commission, an agency of the judicial branch. The guidelines were intended to limit judges' discretion without locking them into one-size-fits-all sentences. Mandatory minimums, in contrast, are enacted by Congress and are part of the criminal code.

"The guidelines always have some sort of escape," said Jeffrey B. Sklaroff of the New York office of Greenberg Traurig, a law firm that represents 29 former judges and prosecutors who filed a brief in support of Mr. Angelos in July. "A mandatory minimum means what it says: it is mandatory, and it is a minimum."

In Mr. Angelos's case, the drug offenses and related money-laundering convictions, for using drug money to buy a car and pay his rent, could subject him to eight years in prison. The mandatory minimums are for the additional offense of carrying a gun while selling drugs. Mr. Angelos carried a Glock pistol in an ankle holster when he sold marijuana on two occasions, though he did not brandish or use it. More guns were found in a briefcase and a safe at his home.

According to the indictment, some of the guns were stolen, though Mr. Angelos was not accused of being the thief. Judge Cassell is required to add five years for the gun in the first deal and 25 years each for the second deal and the guns found at his home.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to strike down the sentencing guidelines after it hears arguments in October, and some legislators are already signaling their preference for more mandatory minimums if the guidelines are deemed unconstitutional.

At a hearing in July on legislation that would increase drug sentences, Representative Howard Coble, Republican of North Carolina, said, "It seems clear that mandatory minimums may well take on added importance in assuring appropriate sentences for serious federal crimes as a result of the Supreme Court's actions."

Ronald H. Weich, a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee who opposes mandatory minimums, said they had a political constituency. "There is a real danger," Mr. Weich said, "that we're heading back to mandatory minimums if guidelines are unconstitutional."

The Justice Department supports mandatory minimums, said Monica Goodling, a spokeswoman.

"Tough but fair mandatory minimum sentences take habitual lawbreakers off the streets, lock up the most dangerous criminals and help ensure the safety of law-abiding Americans," Ms. Goodling said. "Since these common-sense policies were created, we've seen crime plummet to a 30-year low. The public, the Congress and presidents of both parties have supported mandatory minimums for a simple reason - they work."

In June, just days after the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, which struck down the sentencing system of Washington State, Judge Cassell was the first judge to say the logic of the decision required the voiding of the federal sentencing guidelines as well. In the Angelos case, he wrote that he took "no joy" in the "potentially cataclysmic implications" of that reasoning.

In Blakely, the Supreme Court held that all facts that could lead to longer sentences must be found by a jury. But the Washington law, like the federal guidelines, let judges make some such findings.

"There has not been a single case in the history of American criminal law with the immediate impact of this one," Frank O. Bowman, an Indiana University expert in sentencing law, said of Blakely. "The United States Supreme Court has essentially shut down the criminal justice system or at least put it in a state of suspended animation."

Still, whatever the Supreme Court decides about how Blakely applies to the federal guidelines, cases like Mr. Angelos's will not be directly affected, for two reasons: a jury did find the facts about the guns he possessed, and another Supreme Court case says judges may find the facts supporting minimum sentences.

Mr. Angelos's lawyers and the 29 former judges and prosecutors argue that the mandatory sentence in his case amounts to a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court has not been receptive to similar arguments in cases involving three-strikes laws and a first-time offender given life without parole for large-scale cocaine distribution.

However, Judge Cassell has drawn a distinction in his academic work between the guidelines and mandatory minimums. In a Stanford Law Review article in April, he wrote that "the federal sentencing guidelines, while tough, are not 'too' tough." But mandatory minimums, he wrote, "can lead to possible injustices."

In court papers, prosecutors said Mr. Angelos "trafficked in hundreds of pounds of high-grade marijuana," "distributed cocaine and synthetic narcotics" and "affiliated himself with a violent street gang." These assertions, however, were not proved to a jury.

Last year, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court told the American Bar Association that "in too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust." The association appointed a commission, which recently issued a report urging the abolition of such sentencing.

"There are real economic and human costs," said Douglas A. Berman, an Ohio State University expert on sentencing law, "to putting everyone away for as long as humanly possible."

Melodie Rydalch, a spokeswoman for Paul M. Warner, the United States attorney in Salt Lake City, said his office had no comment on the Angelos case. In general, Ms. Rydalch said, "we will continue to enforce mandatory minimums so long as Congress tells us to."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[gonzo]

the federal sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with bush. they were implemented a long time ago - at this point they are a cluster-fuck and not really even a liberal or conservative issue. the justices have in fact begun to move against them recently, as the article notes, and they are likely to be struck down this term. no matter who wins the election and gets the next appointees, it is safe to say the guidelines are out.

[Dantheman]

"Since these common-sense policies were created, we've seen crime plummet to a 30-year low. The public, the Congress and presidents of both parties have supported mandatory minimums for a simple reason - they work."

Throwing everyone in jail is not success you fucking moron! Jesus, this country has only 5% of the world's population but has 25% of it's prisoners. There are more people in prison in this country for drug offenses alone than there are people in prison in the EU for all offenses combined, and the EU has a larger population. It's fucked up, on a fundamental level. But what's their solution? Put people in jail even longer!

[gramps]

In reference to the comment about how he would get 5-7 years in a UT state court: I forget the term for it, but UT's system gives the judge a great deal of leeway in deciding a sentence; the judge's hands aren't tied by high minimums set by people who can't forsee every possible situation. This is in contrast to the current Federal situation, where overzealous legislators haved forced the hands of judges in an effort to be "tough on crime"

[FNG]

During the depression, the government declared a "War on Poverty" which as a biproduct made poor people the enemy. That same war mentality in the "War on Drugs" has made drug dealers and addicts the enemy. Until we stop using "War on..." tactics to solve problems in America, situations like the one mentioned above will continue to exist.

[Game Over]

the federal sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with bush. they were implemented a long time ago - at this point they are a cluster-fuck and not really even a liberal or conservative issue.

Id have to disagree with this being a non-partison issue on the fact that Repubs. are all about tougher crime laws, i.e. patriot act and that the Ashcroft Justice departmant is quoted in that article as supporting minimum sentences.

[gonzo]

Id have to disagree with this being a non-partison issue on the fact that Repubs. are all about tougher crime laws, i.e. patriot act and that the Ashcroft Justice departmant is quoted in that article as supporting minimum sentences.

yes, repubs/conservatives like to say they are tough on crime, and yes ashcroft supports minimum sentences.

however, minimum sentences and the federal sentencing guidelines are not the same thing at all.

The Blakely v. Washington decision:
"Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, and in which Rehnquist, C.*J., and Kennedy, J., joined except as to Part IV—B. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O’Connor, J., joined."

That is about as non-partisan and clusterfucked as it gets. If you had to point it in one direction it is driven by the conservatives since Scalia and Thomas are in the majority, but Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg are there too. Then O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Breyer dissenting separately but joining eachother in some and all in others...not a hard line partisan issue at all.

[Game Over]

Very good point.

Wow, is this possible-- a non-partison issue, right now??

[repeat]

The whole "war on drugs" is very counterprodoctive. The main goal of the gov. is to restrict the supply of drugs. The problem is that this greatly increases the incentive to be a dealer. The smaller the supply is, the more money the dealers make.

[phUnk]

Yup, the inside scoop in SLC is that the war on drugs is retarded.

[gonzo]

Very good point.

Wow, is this possible-- a non-partison issue, right now??

i know. it is almost refreshing. i have a lot of respect for the supreme court justices and that part of the system, no matter what side of an issue a justice may be on. they have their views and they stick to them and they apply them to the cases that come before them. conservatism in the supreme court is not mindless, vote-pandering, i'm-scared-of-people-different-than-me conservatism. it is fully rational and fully believeable when you read it, esp. when scalia writes it. definitely something to be said for having unelected officials at that level.

the problem is that the legislature and executive braches are so clusterfucked that the SC is becoming the easiest route for policy change, which is not the way the system is supposed to work. for example in this instance, the legislatures should have figured out the policies were not working and were unfair several years ago, but no candidate wants to be "soft on crime" so it ends up on the judicial plate...


edit: or at least that is what has been funneled into my head...who knows.

[ak_powder_monkey]

Alaskans: Vote yes on 2

that is all

[Zeedashbo]

The Blakely v. Washington decision:
"Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, and in which Rehnquist, C.*J., and Kennedy, J., joined except as to Part IV—B. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O’Connor, J., joined."

.

heh. i briefed this case for my law class.

[365wp]

the problem is that the legislature and executive braches are so clusterfucked that the SC is becoming the easiest route for policy change, which is not the way the system is supposed to work.

Yes. And now the Republican majority is attempting to pass (or has passed) a bill prohibiting the SC from ruling on the pledge of allegiance case. If that happens, I'm sure that will be the first foot in the door of a whole slew of SC restrictions that would effectively remove some of the checks and balances in the system.

[Arnold Pants]

So far, sounds like nobody has heard of this guy. Like if the other side of the story is that he's the biggest drug dealer in town, but they could only nail him for some small deals. Or maybe he feeds the poor at Thanksgivng, who knows.

A bit more on sentencing, which I do know something about...

The Guidelines system came about because of activism on both sides of the aisle - liberals were concerned about racial and income disparities in sentences (i.e. racist judges), and conservatives about short sentences (i.e. hippie judges). in 1984, the guidelines system was created. Since then, mostly, but not entirely, during Republican administrations, two things have happened. First, the minimums aspect of the system got hijacked by the War on Drugs, and minimums for drug crimes were jacked up across the board. Second, the various "safety valve" provisions were eliminated. These permitted judges to drop below the minimum in various situations. The combination has created these awful situations where some 19 year old kid introduces a narc to his street corner dealer, gets hauled in as an accessory, and goes the pen for 20 years.

Then, as part of the Amber Alert bill last year, the Republicans tacked on a provision which gutted the last vestige of judicial authority to offer lower sentences.

As far as the Blakely decision (the Scalia opinion that several people mentioned), which formally dealt only with the Washington State guidelines, the issue there was not the guidelines specifically, but if a judge can rely on facts not proved to a jury in order to give a higher sentence. If for example, the prosecutor does not seek to prove at trial that a drug dealer possessed a gun during while dealing, but presents evidence of that fact to the judge at sentencing. The constitutional issues behind that issue are complex and far-reaching, hence the unusual line-up of justices and multiple opinions. They don't entirely reflect the political opinions of the justices on the guidelines overall, or of their overall politics.

Rehnquist, for example, has spoken in public about his strong dislike for certain aspects of the system, but dissented in Blakely. And I think it's Breyer, who is a Clinton appointee, who is their biggest fan on the court. Scalia, who wrote the lead opinion in Blakely, has never liked the guidelines - he wrote a dissenting opinion in a 1989 case called Mistretta, in which he argued that the Guidelines system was unconsitutional all together (because it was a unacceptable delegation of authority). But he is actually the swing vote on the issue in Blakely - he had at one time been part of a 5 justice majority permitting judges to use facts not proved. But he has since changed his mind (I'm sure he wouldn't call it that, but there you go).

Politically, I don't think it is quite accurate to refer to this as a non-partisan issue. It does cut across ideologies, the guidelines draw fire from elements of the left and the right. But in practical political terms, Republicans are the driving force behind increasing minimums and decreasing judicial discretion. For example, Ashcroft recently issued formal order to all federal prosecutors that they were to seek the maximum available penalty in all cases, and even to offer a plea bargain, they had to get permission from his office first. This is ironic, because one of the arguments in favor of limiting judicial discretion is that it is replaced by something called "prosecutiorial discretion" which is better, because federal prosecutors are ultimately, through their boss, the President, accountable to the people, and can be fired, unlike federal judges. I guess Ashcroft didn't get that memo.

Sorry, that's more than ski board needs to know about federal sentencing guidelines. But one highly relevant fact emerges. National Forests are federal lands. Federal law applies on federal lands. Many ski areas are in national forests. Don't get busted for a drug offense on federal lands. Or you might be playing craps with Mr. Angelos for the next few decades.

[Benny Profane]

Don't blame Bush. We had a prez for 8 years before him who was an admitted pot smoker and, unfortunately, a little more obsessed with getting his bone smoked than stopping this shit.

[FNG]

But there was peace & prosperity for those 8 years.

[13]

But there was peace & prosperity for those 8 years.

Domestically, in terms of crime, yeah.

We shouldn't forget our military action in Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, and the not-so-secret war being fought in Colombia with U.S. "advisors" and "contractors."

One thing I don't like about the current election is that the issue of crime hasn't been brought up. I believe that in Detroit, the number of murders has nearly doubled.

[FNG]

One thing I don't like about the current election is that the issue of crime hasn't been brought up. I believe that in Detroit, the number of murders has nearly doubled.

I think I heard Kerry say once during the debate that he wants to have more police stations and fire departments since according to him, many were closed down during Bush's rule. I'd give 25/1 odds that he actually does something about it if elected though.

[A-wreck]

Domestically, in terms of crime, yeah.

We shouldn't forget our military action in Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, and the not-so-secret war being fought in Colombia with U.S. "advisors" and "contractors."

One thing I don't like about the current election is that the issue of crime hasn't been brought up. I believe that in Detroit, the number of murders has nearly doubled.

Detroit is a very uniqe(sp?) place......
we are a very violent city..........
we are so numb to death it's ridiculous............

I had some friends come into town from north philly.......yes they live in north philly which I understand is a not-so-nice place.............they were more afraid of downtown Detroit on a thursday afternoon than their own neighborhood on a hot friday night......

they were here for five days and my friend managed to see two dead bodies....one of which was shot right in front of him ................I must admit these are impressive stats for a five day visit..........I've only managed to see a couple dozen dead bodies.....and see two or three people leave us.....and I've been here my whole life......

[meatdrink9]

py stuff. Definitely some things out of whack there when you compare the minimum sentences for hijackers and the like. But I will say I have no problem with that guy getting locked away for a good long time. Selling weed is one thing. Nothing scary there. But packing heat while selling (I wonder why). Having several other stolen guns in his possesion. In other words more crime (maybe he didn't steal them, but him buying them gives the thieves more reason to keep breaking into houses and possibly using violence if they can continue to move product).

As somebody who lives in an area rife with crime I don't have a problem with taking people like this off the streets. The cops call our area "a self cleaning oven" because the drugs, hookers/STDs, and violence are slowly taking the bad element out on it's own.

[Woodsy]

So far, sounds like nobody has heard of this guy. Like if the other side of the story is that he's the biggest drug dealer in town, but they could only nail him for some small deals. Or maybe he feeds the poor at Thanksgivng, who knows.

Heard of the guy yes, have a few mutual frineds & been aware of him for a while:

actualy pretty big Hip hop promoter & producer of all the bomb ass hip hop comin outta the SLC, ok the last partis a bit ironic although he works a lot in Long Beach & has featued snoop on some records on his label, Extravagent Records, but throughout the process it has become obvious that this played a part in the whole prosecution.
a)they targetted this guy for being so Hip hop & Hi profilin
b) he likes to play the thug part with the guns and all.

dealing weed in SLC is not really gonna get you gunned down, so he created some of his own problem.
local coverage: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595091476,00.html

as far as is he good guy?
They think so http://deseretnews.com/photos/1962875.jpg

[zion zig zag]

Rape of a 10-year-old: 11 years.

This makes me sick, Utah has one of the worst records in the nation for prosecuting child molestors. There is guy who runs a local hamburger stand who has been twice convicted of rape of a child. Ironic since utah likes to claim they love thier children so much.

[13]

As somebody who lives in an area rife with crime I don't have a problem with taking people like this off the streets. The cops call our area "a self cleaning oven" because the drugs, hookers/STDs, and violence are slowly taking the bad element out on it's own.

So much for "serve and protect," then. Your local cops are doing a bang-up job!

What happens when an innocent bystander catches a cap in the head?

What about the druggie that B&E's and steals shit from people's homes to support his habit?

Hookers don't limit themselves to adults, they're perfectly happy to take money from young boys too.

[meatdrink9]

as far as is he good guy?
They think so http://deseretnews.com/photos/1962875.jpg

However, I think it's he who let them down and not the government.