FLORIDA MAY REQUIRE POLICE TO RECORD LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERROGATIONS ON ALL FELONIES

Right now in Florida when a law enforcement officer faces an internal disciplinary investigation or hearing he has the right to demand that the entire hearing be recorded. Yet that same officer while investigating a possible crime need not record any interrogations with a criminal suspect. Kind of interesting that officers value their own rights when their jobs may be at stake more than the rights of Floridians one reason why as a rule a suspect should not make a statement to police investigating a crime.

ABBEY ROAD STUDIO
FOR TIMELESS INTERROGATIONS

Let's get something straight all interrogations and interviews between law enforcement officers and anyone under investigation should be recorded. Only officers who intentionally want to hide evidence would ever fail to record conversations. Instead of recordings what we often get in Florida criminal courtrooms is a travesty of justice. An officer testifies to what he or she remembers a defendant may have said months earlier without any verification. It's not unusual for officers to give conflicting reasons as to why no recordings of interview are made.

Officers say they don't want to intimidate a defendant with a recording device though the fact that the officer is armed and may be intimidating with his firearm is apparently fine. Officers habitually state that there was no need to record a defendant's statement since another officer was in the room taking notes, the bias of that officer unquestionable. 

Officers contend that no recordings are needed because they have no reason to lie about what the defendant says when in fact officers are often biased and have even been proven to have perjured themselves while testifying. One former DEA agent was even sent to prison after demanding $700,000 from the family of a drug trafficker he'd arrested. Would his statements as to admissions in interrogations from the drug trafficker be unbiased, fair and impartial?

But officers don't like us to know the truth. And one of those truths is that in our flawed Florida criminal justice system cops often obtain false confessions by telling lies and giving false information during interrogations. And that law enforcement officers do not have to tell the truth when questioning suspects about a crime. By allowing these base prevarications judges and prosecutors shouldn't be surprised when other lies leak into the system to the point that confessions can't be relied on unless they're recorded.

Clearly, recording the complete and unedited conversations of investigating law enforcement officers not only keeps the officers honest but presents an accurate portrayal of what happened during the interrogation and why it happened. It also makes the case stronger against the defendant if it's clear that any statements made were made freely and voluntarily.

Although Florida lawmakers may soon change the law to require police in felony cases to record all interviews with Defendants, it's not enough to protect the rights of Floridians. Clearly all suspects for any criminal activity felony or misdemeanor should be recorded for timeless evidence of what was said. But take a defense lawyer's advice and remember that you don't need to ever make a statement to an officer.

HOW FEDERAL SAFETY VALVE CAN VOID A MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE EVEN AFTER A FEDERAL TRIAL

One of the few ways to avoid a mandatory minimum sentences in nonviolent federal drug cases is by invoking the safety valve provision. The safety valve is useful way for any defendant to avoid a harsh sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines if he does not have any prior criminal convictions and if he fulfills an obligation to be debriefed by the DEA or FBI before he is sentenced.

Recently a Florida federal criminal defense attorney sent the following email:

Federal Judge slowly opens Safety Valve

What do I need to do to make certain of getting safety valve after a trial?  I have a drug conspiracy trial set and my client is safety valve eligible, I want to make sure I don't do anything to invalidate his eligibility at jury trial so that if we lose the trafficking in cocaine case the judge will still not sentence my client to the mandatory minimum prison term.

Other than making sure the jury does not convict his client what should he do to make sure that his client's eligibility for the safety valve is not compromised.

Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines section 5C1.2  and federal caselaw the defendant must provide full and truthful disclosure no later than the time of sentencing. 

Not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant had concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

Usually sentencing after a federal conviction at trial will occur about three months later unless there are good reasons for the District Judge to continue the sentencing. Sometimes the government agents and federal prosecutors involved with the case will make it difficult to schedule the debriefing meeting possibly because they're miffed that the defendant chose to exercise his right to a jury trial. If that's the case a motion should be filed with the judge asking that the court order the agents to attend the defendant's proffer at a set time and date under threat of being held in contempt. 

But is a mere proffer completed before sentencing enough? No, it isn't. To get the safety valve provision the sentencing guidelines clearly call for the defendant to come clean in a complete and truthful way in the proffer to persuade the sentencing judge that the defendant has been honest. (see US v. Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302)

We live in an era of prison over-incarceration because federal and state judges no longer have sentencing discretion in nonviolent drug crimes. Anytime the safety valve can be used to avoid a mandatory minimum the judge becomes a free agent who can finally give a much fairer sentence to the defendant.

PUSH TO REDUCE FLORIDA'S MINIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR MANY NONVIOLENT DRUG CRIMES

Florida has 118 state crimes that trigger tough minimum mandatory sentences, which is close but not yet outdone by the 145 federal criminal laws that have harsh minimum mandatory sentences. Minimum mandatory sentences are an unfair punishment because they take away the sentencing judge's discretion to make the best sentencing decisions. This is especially true for the many Florida drug crimes that result in arrest such as possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, oxycodone, prescription pain pills, prescription fraud, steroids, xanax, hydrocodone and codeine. 

More Discretion well fits your
Favorite Judge

Possession of only a small amount of any of these drugs can trigger a minimum mandatory term of many years imprisonment ruining the lives of not only the defendant, but his family, friends and loved ones. Drug charges are inherently nonviolent felonies that should not result in arrest or jail sentences. Even cases that involve the sale of drugs should not result in long prison sentences. Yet in Florida sale or possession of even the smallest quantities of illicit drugs can require judges to give harsh punishment of years of prison.

Recently a group of conservative and liberal Florida lawmakers unanimously agreed to send a prison diversion bill out of committee for a vote in the Senate. The goal of the bill is to end minimum mandatory sentences in Florida for nonviolent offenses and to give Florida judges the discretion they need to create fair sentences with better sentencing options.

As citizens we need to make our representatives understand that we want all of these state and federal unfair minimum mandatory sentencing laws changed. Nonviolent people our spending too much time needlessly imprisoned in Florida and throughout our country to the point that federal prisons wrongly hold thousands of prisoners beyond their release dates.

ONLY 1/4TH OF ALL FEDERAL DRUG TRAFFICKERS ARE REINCARCERATED AFTER SERVING THEIR PRISON TIME

Despite attempts to overlook bias for the goal of fair sentencing at least one federal judge has confessed to over-sentencing defendants to hundreds of years in prison. Most of the over-sentencing results from federal crimes where minimum mandatory sentences are applicable. Many of those crimes are drug related. The crimes are broken down by substance such as trafficking and conspiracy to traffick in marijuana, heroin, cocaine (powder versus crack) or methamphetamine. 

A new study by the sentencing commission on recidivism rates among federal drug trafficking offenders offers plenty of evidence that the sentences given by judges in these crimes is far too harsh. 

Bayer Bottle of Heroin
Cough Suppressant, 1910

Sentencing commission reviews are useful and important studies to leverage unique sentencing arguments. Here are some important facts found by the sentencing commission that lend support to arguments that the minimum mandatory prison terms set by federal statute for these crimes are far too harsh. These facts may also be used for mitigation arguments at sentencing to secure a below guidelines sentence if the federal guidelines call for a prison term above the minimum mandatory threshold. 

First, the reincarceration rate for federal drug traffickers is only 23.4% while just over half were rearrested for a crime. The most serious crime most likely to be arrested for was only a misdemeanor assault.

Second, those who did commit another crime after being released from federal prison did so at a median time of 25 months from release. This is a good argument for less actual imprisonment but more supervision upon release.

Third, age of the defendant is an important factor in risk of future crime. The older the defendant is at the time of release the less likely it is that he'll be arrested again.

Fourth, other than the age of a defendant the criminal history score is the most likely indicator of recidivism. This makes sense since the prior criminal acts of the defendant would tend to establish greater risk of association with future criminal activity.

The question of recidivism goes directly to a key issue in fair sentencing of whether the defendant has some likely predisposition to commit another crime after conviction and release from prison. The facts found in the new report can be useful in making arguments for reduction of sentences.

FEDERAL JUDGE LOOKS AT BIAS AND HIS GOAL OF FAIR SENTENCING AFTER DEFENDANT ALMOST SHOOTS HIM

Recently we looked at the musings of a retired federal judge who confessed that she over-sentenced defendants to hundreds of years in prison. Now let's look at how a Federal District Judge in Florida confronts his task of fair sentencing in a Duke Law School PDF, Who appointed me God?. 

Missing Winston Churchill

His goal of fair sentencing was made more difficult at least in regard to possible bias after a defendant he'd recently sentenced shot at him while the judge was sitting at home in his favorite chair with his wife a few feet away. Though the bullet missed, the judge could not quite stomach Winston Churchill's belief that "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."

While looking at his own possible bias he notes that his staff believes he seems to give female defendants more lenient sentences. He justifies this by noting that unlike most male defendants the women often represent the sole support for children and other dependants. 

In looking for a just punishment he examines the inherent conflicts that arise with giving cooperators substantial assistance and the fact that prosecutors too often control the process since the judge can not give credit for cooperation unless the federal prosecutor files a motion for substantial assistance. Further, the judge notes that he tries to avoid randomness in sentencing so cases are consistently sentenced over a wide range of factual situations. This of course is possible only in cases that do not happen to trigger the 145 federal crimes that have federal minimum mandatory sentences.

And there lies the difference between an honest retired judge bemoaning her forced needless over-sentencing of hundreds of years and a sitting judge who blindly believes federal cases where he has actual sentencing discretion make up for all the ones where he has none. When he can truly make a difference for good in the lives of defendants, defendant's families and for victims, he does, and that's commendable. Yet it's troubling that he doesn't spend any time acknowledging the truth that for 145 federal crimes that trigger harsh minimum mandatory sentences he's just another voiceless cog within our corrupting criminal justice system justified and given authority by the false pretense that our federal judges have sentencing discretion.

FEDERAL JUDGE CONFESSES TO OVER-SENTENCING DEFENDANTS TO HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF PRISON

In a searing article a federal judge confesses to sentencing defendants to hundreds of years more than she wanted to because she had no choice due to the power of federal prosecutors in sentencing and the necessity of giving minimum mandatory sentencing for the 145 federal crimes that require it. She also notes that the United States with less than five percent of the world's population incarcerates twentyfive percent of the prisoners in the world. She could also have mentioned some of the obvious unfairness in our sentencing including the fact that although rates of drug use for whites and blacks in America are the same blacks are ten times as likely to go to prison as whites.

Finding the
Key to Fair Sentencing

After noting that sentencing factors should focus on the four elastic and at times conflicting sentencing goals of retribution, confinement, deterrence and rehabilitation. 
Yet she often had only one sentencing tool at her disposal, the authority to confine and punish federal defendants with long minimum mandatory prison terms.

... I was often prohibited from assessing a defendant’s history, personal characteristics or role in the offense. In sentencing, where judgment should matter most, I could not exercise my judgment. I felt more like a computer than a judge. And I was not alone. 

Over the years, many of my colleagues on the federal bench felt the same frustrations. 

This problem upset me as soon as I was appointed in 1994. Mandatory minimums were almost always excessive, and they made me feel unethical, even dirty. After seven years, my patience had run thin and my conscience was troubled; I began to consider resigning. I sought the advice of a revered mentor, a federal judge with more than 30 years of experience. He pointed out that quitting would serve nobody, as another judge would be required to impose identical sentences anyway. He also said that if I left, the bench would lose a judge who could advocate for criminal justice reform through her decisions. 

So I remained. But to this day, I am pained by many of the sentences I was required by law to impose. While I bore the title “Honorable Judge,” I felt less than honorable and more like a complicit tool of an unjust system.

Here is a federal judge who clearly cares about the people she is sentencing as judges often did in the era before unfair minimum mandatory sentences. Today it's much easier to simply give harsh sentences than to give fair sentences. Every judge knows that it's much less likely that a federal appeals court especially in the eleventh circuit will overturn an overly harsh sentence than a fair one. 

It's interesting and sad that this judge saw herself as little more than a computer or an adding machine for calculating the hundreds of years in prison others must serve. And somehow especially disheartening that her conscience only awoke to make her public attack on harsh federal sentencing after she'd safely retired. 

For judges still working, I ask you, where are you? Where are your voices. Why aren't you speaking out against the injustices that take place in your courtrooms every day?