THE SENTENCING GUIDELINE RANGE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE FACTOR USED FOR FAIR SENTENCING IN FLORIDA

Finding the appropriate sentencing guideline range is one of the most important factors in sentencing since judges and prosecutors use the guidelines as a base point for sentencing. When the sentencing guidelines call for prison time it's very important for to find the best ways to avoid the implications of the guideline range so the judge has better sentencing options. Within the state and federal sentencing guidelines systems prosecutors often have far more power than judges in determining the final outcome of sentencing so judges must be stopped from giving prosecutors preference in sentencing to achieve the best results for defendants.

Weighing the real costs of prison.
Vermeer, Woman Holding a Balance

The most important factor in sentencing other than the application of the sentencing guidelines is persuading the judge who may be human that you're a person and not just a case number and that just maybe you're a human too. Let's face it judges see the worst of humanity in their courtrooms every day. Imagine spending hour after hour listening to lawyers constantly arguing and belittling each other. It'd make anyone less inclined to be sympathetic. And it would be difficult to actually listen for mitigating factors in sentencing thru the fog of arguments.

Ultimately the goal of the process for some judges seems to be simply to harshly punish rather than to find the best remedy for whatever caused the criminal allegation in the first place. For a defense lawyer the driving force of presentations to the judge should be to read the judge's mind to find the best arguments for a non-prison sentence of probation, house arrest or work release. For most cases within the criminal justice system a prison only ruins the lives of the offender and his family and does nothing to help rehabilitate him. Is jail really necessary for a drug crime such as possession of cocaine or for a crime against property such as grand theft? What are the real costs of sending someone to prison?

Does the judge consider that the defendant will lose his job? Does the judge know that the family will lose their home? Does the judge understand that the children will no longer have a parent? Therefore it's necessary for the criminal defense attorney to touch the very heart of the sentencing judge so that he fully comprehends all of the dire consequences a sentence of prison will mean in balancing for a fair decision. So often in criminal law we see the results of a harsh sentencing is far worse than the very crime being answered.

HOW CAN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AVOID A FEDERAL CRIMINAL INDICTMENT: DON'T LIE TO THE FBI

The dead of night. My phone rings. No less than a beleaguered Michael Flynn seeking advice again. For his sake I don't answer. These calls I've learned may be recorded who knows by whom or why.

Speaking to the Ambassador

Before we explore whether or not our new National Security Adviser has broken federal laws we can certainly agree that like the boss he serves, he is not competent. Only in Washington for a few weeks and he's already under threat of criminal prosecution under the Hood Act for undermining the foreign policy of the former administration in recorded calls to a foreign power's ambassador. It will depend on the recordings themselves as to whether his actions rise to the level of a crime. 

But the FBI investigates in mysterious ways. If they can't pin a criminal case based on the facts the most effective way to force a guilty plea to a federal crime under federal law is merely to establish that the defendant lied to the FBI. In fact the real threat from federal prosecution comes if he told the investigating FBI agents the same lies he told to the Vice President. If so, recent history of FBI investigations should give the National Security Adviser cause to make ever more late night calls to federal criminal defense lawyers in need of sleep.

The FBI's treatment of former House Speaker Hastert in a hush money case was unjust because they used his lies to the FBI about why he went over the $10,000 banking withdrawal limits to force a leveraged federal criminal plea to effectively punish his admittedly disgusting but unprosecutable sexual abuse of children which at the time allegedly committed was not even a federal crime. Martha Stewart was also undone not so much for the underlying allegations of stock manipulations the FBI suspected but couldn't prove but for being caught in not being honest to the FBI.

Here's what I wrote about the Hastert case at the time:

He stated that he didn't trust the banking system when in truth he was paying hush money. So what does the FBI do? Rather than investigate the possible blackmail Hastert was subjected to, it pulled out the infamous Martha Stewart option of charging federal felonies for not being honest with FBI agents. When one ponders the Stalinist aspect of these statutes how can one help but think they are un-American.

My problem here is with the federal criminal law. It simply should not be a crime to lie to FBI agents. It gives them too much power. If anything our criminal justice system actually provides incentives for law enforcement officers to commit perjury and those officers who do lie in official reports or under oath should be disciplined and prosecuted but often aren't. And it clearly gives them the ability to leverage that power in such a way as to force guilty pleas in cases where there is insufficient evidence to win a conviction on the actual criminal act under investigation. 

THE FEDERAL CRIME OF MAKING THREATS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT COULD GET YOU ARRESTED & CONVICTED

One of the surest and quickest ways to meet a friendly FBI agent is to threaten the President of the United States. Whatever one may think of the president, his policies or his administration, the office of the president is protected by federal criminal law. 

Threaten Roosevelt again & you're out of here!
Nighthawks, Edward Hopper, 1942

Any threats made against a sitting president will be taken seriously by federal law enforcement officers, investigated fully and may result in an arrest or a presentation to a federal grand jury for an indictment. The law is laid out at 18 U.S.C. Section 871(a) and basicly establishes that to prove an allegation of threats against the president the government must show the following:


1. The defendant intentionally threatened to kill, injure, kidnap or harm the President of the United States or harm another officer next in order of succession to the presidency.
2. The defendant meant the words to be a real threat.
3. The threat was either written or spoken. 

Just proving the making of a threat is the sum of the crime since there's nothing in the statute that requires the government to prove that the defendant had at the time the treat was made any real ability, intention or plan to actually pursue a conspiracy to kill, injure, kidnap or harm the President with or without weapons, guns or firearms. 

Possible federal criminal defenses include the argument that the statement was not a real threat, but what constitutes a threat? Let's put it this way, if you're even asking the question you're on thin ice as anything that could be perceived as physically injuring the president or worse is sufficient to trigger the crime. Yet it must be a serious threat in that those you thought would hear or read the communication would take the threat to be a threat not just a joke. 

Since you're still reading this perhaps an insanity defense is appropriate to consider in your case. But if unfortunately you are found to be sane then some affirmative defenses such as duress (gun to your mailman's head), mistake (you thought you were merely threatening your mailman not the president) or coercion (that damned deranged mailman put the gun to your head) may secure your freedom.

There's never a free speech first amendment right to threaten the president. Here it is the speech or written word that is specifically not protected from federal prosecution. So no matter how you feel it's very important to be careful that you never say nor write anything that threatens the person of the president.

FLORIDA PROSECUTORS MAY PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES TO TRIAL EVEN WHEN VICTIMS DON'T

Florida prosecutors often proceed toward a full prosecution even when the victim does not want to cooperate. In some crimes such as sexual battery on a minor or child pornography this makes sense because the victim isn't in a position to reliably gauge the full consequences of the prosecution. In other cases such as spouse battery the state has an interest in making certain that in the future the family unit is not subject to violent behavior. 

Prosecutor & Defendant at Trial

In fact in most cases that allege violent behavior such as aggravated battery or assault the state of Florida will look at the victim's desire to pursue prosecution as little more than a recommendation. In other violent acts such as murder, vehicular manslaughter or DUI manslaughter the desires of the deceased victim's family are considered only very late in the process after a plea or conviction and before sentencing to determine not whether charges should be pursued but how much prison time, if any, the family wants the presiding sentencing judge to give.

But why does the state sometimes prosecute nonviolent crimes such as scheme to defraud, fraud or grand theft even when a victim does not want to proceed? In truth in these cases the lack of victim cooperation can prove insurmountable to proving the case before a jury so are much less likely to be pursued by Florida state prosecutors who believe civil remedies are therefore sufficient. But even here it would depend on the nature of the theft. For example, someone found to have embezzled the youth baseball players fund is apt to be prosecuted despite unanimous victim support for non-prosecution as even prosecutors are arguably human and apt to want to throttle the perpetrator despite the wishes of the victims.

In Florida victims can't force dismissal of criminal charges by signing requests not to prosecute the defendant and delivering that request timely to the prosecutor. Instead the request is kept by the state attorney to help justify a no filing of the criminal charges or as evidence of the victim's possible lack of enthusiasm should things go wrong later. Nor can a victim control the outcome of a criminal case by trying to evade a witness subpoena for testimony at trial with much hope of success since occasionally judges punish the victim with jail after citing contempt of court where proof of evasion is evident.

THE BEST LIFE EXPERIENCE FOR OUR FEDERAL JUDGES SHOULD BE TIME SPENT HUNGRY WHILE SITTING IN JAIL

Federal judges tend to be old, male and even whiter than I am. They often come from privileged backgrounds, better schools and colleges which in practice provides limited actual insight into the lives, problems, decisions, hopes and failures of those who come before them. Culturally, politically and aesthetically they are not of us nor with us, but always apart from us. 

Sentencing a Federal Judge to Jail

Ideally we'd live in a society where our judges pride themselves on life experience that makes their ability to judge better. A good judge in my book has spent time hungry and fed the poor; lived in a jail and spent time there helping those charged with crimes. A judge would have an understanding that a full, giving, caring life is about making the world a better place. 

Yet we often expect too much from our federal judges. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to know the law. We expect them to follow the law. Occasionally I even foolishly expect them to kick the prosecutor's butt when federal trials become a mockery of justice. Our federal judges who are appointed for life terms by the President of the United States have little hope for parole at any age since they have nothing else in their lives comparable to the glorious authority of their cold courtrooms. 

So what can we do to eliminate implicit bias in our federal criminal cases, jury trials, arguments, motions and sentencing hearings? Every closing argument, motion and hearing should bend toward making our defendants more than just another case number, more than a name, but a haunting unforgiving mirror of humanity for the that particular judge. 

TAKING IMMEDIATE ACTION AFTER A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTMENT OFTEN GAINS THE BEST RESULTS

We've looked at methods to stop the grand jury process, establishing there's been grand jury abuse and how to make direct challenges to a grand jury indictment. But unfortunately even when a grand jury indictment may be subject to a later challenge once a federal grand jury produces an indictment against a defendant who has not already been arrested for the allegations he will face immediate federal arrest. Within hours or a few days of the arrest the defendant will face a federal magistrate judge in a federal courtroom who will make important determinations as to whether the defendant should be released while awaiting trial and if so what restraints and limitations may be required such as giving up of passport, gps monitoring, drug monitoring or ankle bracelet.

 Eliminate Your Flight Risk

Unlike the way criminal cases move forward in Florida's state criminal court system it's unusual for a bail bondsman to be involved in the federal bond process as the magistrate is apt to either allow a property bond subject to forfeiture or to grant a signature bond if release before trial is deemed appropriate. The magistrate judge's primary objective is to secure attendance to future court hearings and trials by eliminating any flight risk from the defendant. Factors a judge takes into account for federal bond and detention include the nature of the offense, the prior record of the defendant, the violent nature of the offense and statutory requirements such as the necessity to view any drug trafficking offense as a presumptive threat to the public.

In the Middle District of Florida most federal prisoners await their first appearance at the Pinellas County Jail which is often overcrowded with unsafe conditions. After the initial hearing with the magistrate the Florida federal cases proceed quickly compared to Florida state cases and in a manner of months are usually resolved by plea or trial.

The most important decisions made by federal defendants are often made very early in the federal criminal process sometimes well before the grand jury even deliberates on the allegations of misconduct. In federal cases where smart decisions are made early the likelihood of future success are enhanced so it's important to work with your federal criminal defense lawyer to gain the best results.