Former federal judge to President Obama: Free the man I sentenced to 55 years

[joshfraser]

In 2004, when Cassell sentenced Angelos, he wrote a lengthy opinion, comparing Angelos’s sentence (738 months) with the guideline sentences for the kingpin of three major drug trafficking rings that caused three deaths (465 months), a three-time aircraft hijacker (405 months), a second-degree murderer of three victims (235 months) and the rapist of three 10-year-olds (188 months).

Where is the justice? Is there anyone who could argue this is the way we want our judicial system to work? Why can't we fix this already?

[gozur88]

Like almost everything the government does that's stupid on its face, mandatory minimums were a reaction to a different problem. Voters were angry because there were wide disparities in sentencing, and it seemed some judges were wont to give out light sentences no matter how heinous the crime. It's probably not unreasonable to say "If you kill someone, you should serve at least this amount of time regardless of circumstances."

It's also not unreasonable to think large disparities in sentencing are fundamentally unfair. The amount of jail time you get is supposed to depend on what you did and not which judge presided over your sentencing.

But along the way mandatory minimums became a way for politicians to project the "tough on crime" image. You'd have a news article about a guy who just got out of jail killing an eight year old in a botched drug deal, then the next day Senator Simpleton is there at a press conference announcing a new bill to add 25 years to everybody caught with a gun at a drug deal.

It's virtually impossible for any politician to stand up at that time and say "That seems like an awfully long sentence for being in possession of a firearm."

[matwood]

It is basically an end run around the 2nd amendment. Since the anti-gun lobby cannot outlaw them completely they tack on automatic sentence multipliers for any crime where a gun is found even if the gun was not directly used.

[rayiner]

> He received five years for the gun in the car; 25 years for the second gun charge, having one in an ankle strap; and another 25 years for a third firearms charge, the gun police found in his home. He got one day for the marijuana.

Pretty disingenuous for the lede to lay this all on the war on drugs when the real reason for the long sentence in this particular case is the war on guns.

> His case has been widely championed, including by Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee, former FBI Director Bill Sessions, the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums and conservative billionaire Charles Koch.

Food for thought for those who think the drug war was/is driven by the "establishment" rather than by the grass roots of ordinary voters.

[jpatokal]

The law in question is specifically a drug law:

924(c).Federal drug laws require 5- to 30-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, brandishing or discharging a gun during a drug-trafficking crime.

By my reading of that, this applies even if the gun itself was entirely legal.

[gjm11]

> the real reason [...] is the war on guns.

That's not so clear (to me, at least). Those outrageous 25-year sentences are specifically for having a gun during a drug-trafficking crime.

[chishaku]

> Food for thought for those who think the drug war was/is driven by the "establishment" rather than by the grass roots of ordinary voters.

Are you implying that grassroots voters have been dictating drug policy despite the concerns of the "establishment"?

I'm curious to hear more about this history.

[e40]

Without the drug charge my guess is the other charges would be reduced. Guns + other crimes almost always means much longer sentences. The article is vague on this, though, so we don't really know.

[mikeash]

How is it that this person was convicted on three gun charges, when two of them were (according to the article) based on nothing but the testimony of a single person? The sentence is absurd even if the gun charges are all true, of course, but this seems like an amazingly lax standard of proof as well.

[Fjolsvith]

It has to do with the way that sentences are enhanced after a conviction. Probation officers are assigned to research the "facts" of a case after a conviction and write a Presentencing Report for the judge.

Federal sentence ranges are computed using a grid system. Different "facts" adjust the row or column of the eventual range of months a judge legally has to sentence a person within. Probation officers can be extremely thorough and throw in all kinds of things, or can omit things in the sentence computation.

If a person makes a plea agreement with the Prosecutor, they are essentially saying that such and such facts are relevant and these other ones don't apply to the sentence. If there are any possible enhancements not nailed down in the agreement, the Probation Officer can come in and say these are relevant and surprise! Your 5 year plea just became a 15 year sentence.

(edit) Also, multiple convictions for crimes typically have the sentences run consecutively.

[iconjack]

Remember folks, now that Rand Paul has dropped out, there is one candidate left who is not a drug warrior. This will be the easiest vote I've ever cast.

Edit: I was not fair to Trump on this. He apparently isn't a drug warrior. Still gonna be an easy vote for me though!

[mikeash]

Who are you referring to?

(Edited to remove sarcasm. That wasn't really necessary.)

[BostonEnginerd]

Gary Johnson?

[deelowe]

Gary? Trump? Sanders? Which of the 3 that support legalization do you consider to be the one?

[o0o0_ooo]

Sanders, who I assume you're referring to, only supports decriminalization of marijuana. I'll still be staying at home on voting day.

[mindcrime]

there is one candidate left who is not a drug warrior.

Yep. Gary Johnson.

[bluejekyll]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the gun related charges have caused two issues to happen here:

1) The minimum sentence was exceptionally harsh. 2) Because of the guns, it makes it somewhat of a political hot potato since it looks like he "could" be violent.

[protomyth]

Any law that mention guns that simply counts their alleged presence is bogus. I can see if it was used in commission of a crime but not "he might of had one in the car". If you judge owning a gun = violent the you are part of the problem that sentences people like this to unjustified sentences (edit: I do not assume that is the parent poster's opinion).

[PhantomGremlin]

Just for perspective:

This guy sells marijuana 3x, $350 each, to a narc. He gets 55 years.

Jeffrey Keith Skilling, poster child for white collar crime, convicted of conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, securities fraud, and insider trading, gets 14 years.

The justice system in this country is more fucked up than I could have thought possible.

[Fjolsvith]

No, the justice system is just handing out the sentences that the Congress has decided people in different situations should get.

[alanwatts]

"We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office" -Aesop

Skilling was a noob. The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a better example.

[ScottBurson]

So what would happen to a federal judge if he just didn't impose the mandatory minimum sentence in a case like this? Wouldn't the constitutional separation of powers protect him from any consequences?

[Fjolsvith]

The judge would get in trouble.

Basically, if he didn't follow the guidelines and went lenient, the Prosecutor would appeal the case and get the sentence into the guideline range.

If the judge went over the maximum guideline amount, the Defendant could appeal the case.

No judge likes having his rulings overturned because he didn't follow the law.

[pcwalton]

Link to the opinion in question: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733

[brohoolio]

"The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2011 was $28,893.40."

That is at least $1,500,000 million dollars. Very expensive.

[alanwatts]

TIL we pay more money to take care of prisoners than I get paid to take care of myself.

[fiatmoney]

He should have refused to apply the sentence.

So the sentence potentially gets overturned on appeal, great. The appellate judges should refuse to apply the sentence.

So they get overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, great. The Supreme Court should refuse to apply the sentence. Or, I guess they can spend their time overturning thousands of decisions per year.

Burn it down.

https://popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to-th...

[pdonis]

Burn it down, and then what? The only precedent the article cites is the French Revolution. How did that work out?

Now if you had said, appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court in the hopes of getting the mandatory sentencing law in question declared unconstitutional, that would be fine. But that isn't what you said.

[mikeyouse]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls.. but are you honestly advocating murdering a Federal judge who followed sentencing guidelines? Exactly who should be put to death here?