State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, recently announced that the U.S. Department of Justice will no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug crimes. Possibly recognizing inefficiencies in the decades-long “War on Drugs,” Attorney General Holder noted that we cannot prosecute or incarcerate our way to safety, paving the way for the exclusion of some low-level, non-violent drug crimes from the application of federal mandatory minimum sentencing.
Excessive incarceration is “ineffective and unsustainable” noted Holder in a recent talk given to lawyers from across the country at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting. He intends to work through Congress to reform current mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug crimes. In the meantime, the Department of Justice has determined that federal prosecutors should be mindful of the impact of mandatory minimums when charging an individual with a federal drug crime.
The DOJ is promoting the pursuit of lesser drug charges that won’t trigger mandatory minimums when the following criteria are met:
Whether a person is accused of a federal drug crime, awaiting the determination of guilt or the determination of sentencing, the new guidelines related to mandatory minimum sentencing apply if the above three criteria are met.
The focus of federal prosecutors should no longer be on seeking severe punishments for low-level drug crimes, but this is not the same as ignoring drug crimes altogether. Drug trafficking crimes particularly will still be strongly pursued and mandatory minimum sentencing will continue to apply at the federal level.
In North Carolina, there has – as of yet – been no change in sentencing or prosecution for lower-level drug crimes like simple possession of marijuana. In fact, Sheriffs’ offices across the state have affirmed that they will continue to enforce the drug laws as written, pursuing any and all drug offenses within their jurisdiction.
According to The Sentencing Project, more than half the people in federal prison at any given time are incarcerated for drug crimes. While some may be drug kingpins or serving a sentence for a serious drug trafficking offense, many are first-time offenders with no prior record of violence.
Actor Michael Douglas recently spoke out against the application of a mandatory minimum sentencing structure for lower-level drug crimes. His son, Cameron Douglas, has dealt with drug addiction for several years and is now in federal prison serving a sentence for non-violent drug crimes. He is not expected to be released until 2018.
Douglas was initially sentenced to five years in prison; that term was nearly doubled in 2011 after he was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in prison. In early 2013, Douglas failed a drug test and has since been in solitary confinement. Douglas has attempted, unsuccessfully, to appeal his lengthy prison sentence.
Prisons are not a place for reform or treatment, explained Cameron Douglas in a jailhouse essay on drug policy. His own cycle of addiction led him through a maze of relapse and repeat, something he couldn’t get away from even while behind bars.
In a glimmer of hope, however, for those suffering from a drug addiction that has resulted in substantial jail time on drug-related crimes, Judge Guido Calabresi, who heard Douglas’ appeal, noted:
It may well be that the nation would be better served by a medical approach to treating and preventing addiction than by a criminal-justice-based “war on drugs.” The multiple costs of our imprisonment approach – including the expense of filling our prisons with drug addicts, to mention just a base economic cost – impel me to express the hope that Congress may someday seek out a different way of dealing with this problem.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) also noted that one of the consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing in the United States is that minorities are disproportionately excluded from the ability to participate in government because of non-violent drug-related offenses. In simple terms, they cannot vote because of a drug-related conviction.
The Justice Safety Valve Act, which would grant judges leeway in sentencing for low-level drug crimes was referred to the committee in April. The proposal would expand an existing safety valve law and allow judges to deviate below mandatory minimum sentences if public safety would not be jeopardized.
“Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial,” commented Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) who co-sponsored the Safety Valve Act with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky).
At least one federal judge has been persuaded to hold off on sentencing a man convicted of cocaine possession to see if the call for mandatory minimum sentencing reform will result in more discretion being given to judges in sentencing non-violent drug crimes. With an approximate 700 percent increase in U.S. prison populations over the last 30 years, the time for reform has certainly arrived.
State v. B.S.: Not Guilty Verdict in First Degree Murder Case.
In this case, our client was charged with First Degree Murder in connection with a “drive-by” shooting that occurred in Charlotte, NC. The State’s evidence included GPS ankle monitoring data linking our client was at the scene of the crime and evidence that our client confessed to an inmate while in jail. Nonetheless, we convinced a jury to unanimously find our client Not Guilty. He was released from jail the same day.
State v. S.G.: First Degree Murder Charge Dismissed..
Our client was charged with First Degree for the shooting death related to alleged breaking and entering. The State’s evidence included a co-defendant alleging that our client was the shooter. After conducting a thorough investigation with the use of a private investigator, we persuaded the State to dismiss entirely the case against our client.
State v. B.D.: First Degree Murder Charged Dismissed.
After conducting an investigation and communicating with the prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.
State v. I.R.: Reduction from First Degree Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter and Concealment of Death..
Our client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a young lady by drug overdose. After investigating the decedent’s background and hiring a preeminent expert toxicologist to fight the State’s theory of death, we were able to negotiate this case down from Life in prison to 5 years in prison, with credit for time served.
State v. J.G.: .
Our client was charged with First Degree Murder related to a “drug deal gone bad.” After engaging the services of a private investigator and noting issues with the State’s case, we were able to negotiate a plea for our client that avoided a Life sentence and required him to serve only 12 years.
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
State v. B.S. – First Degree Murder
State v. E.D. – Identity Theft
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
Each case is different and must be evaluated on its individual facts. We work hard to assess each case individually. Prior results do not guarantee any future outcome.
Put our team of criminal defense lawyers on your side today. You are one phone call or email away from getting your questions answered by an experienced defense attorney.
Call us at 877-270-5081 to set up a free consultation or send us an email.
Fields marked with an * are required
Call 877-270-5081 to schedule a free initial consultation. Offices open weekdays 8am – 7pm, Saturdays 9am – 5pm
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.
© 2023 Roberts Marcilliat & Mills PLLC. All Rights Reserved.