University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 2012 Nothing is Not Enough: Fix the Absurd Post- Booker Federal Sentencing System Frank O. Bowman III University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of theCriminal Law Commons, and theCriminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Frank O. Bowman III., Nothing is Not Enough: Fix the Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System, 24 Fed.Sent.R. 356 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 2012-14 Nothing is Not Enough: Fix the Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System Frank O. Bowman, III Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law 24 FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER _ (2012) This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055440 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055440 Nothing Is Not Enough: Fix the Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System 24 FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER _ (2012) Frank O. Bowman, III Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law I. Introduction In February 2012, the U.S. Sentencing Commission generously invited me to testify at a hearing addressing the question of what, if anything, ought to be done to modify the advisory federal guidelines system bequeathed us by the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker.1 The remarks that follow largely track what I said at the time, but have been amplified in light of the excellent presentations I heard there and of intervening developments. I advance three arguments: First, the post-Booker advisory system retains most of the flaws of the system it replaced, while adding new ones, and its sole relative advantage – that of conferring additional (and effectively unreviewable) discretion on sentencing judges – is insufficient to justify its retention as a permanent system. Second, there exist a number of constitutionally permissible alternatives to the court- created Booker system, one of which -- that originally proposed by the Constitution Project and more recently endorsed by Judge Sessions – is markedly superior to the present system. Third, the difficult problem is not designing a sentencing mechanism better than either the pre- or post-Booker guidelines, but ensuring that such a system, once in place, does not replicate pre-Booker experience and become a one-way upward ratchet prescribing ever higher sentences. I offer suggestions about how it might be solved. However, any fair-minded observer must concede both the difficulty of this problem and the justice of the concern that, however imperfect the advisory system, it may be the best that can be achieved given the present constellation of institutional and political forces. II. The Post-Booker Advisory System Considered on its own merits, the system bequeathed us by Booker is indefensible. It retains virtually every feature excoriated by critics of the original sentencing guidelines. Its extreme ‘advisoriness,’ while partially ameliorating some problems with the original guidelines, reintroduces the very concerns about unreviewable judicial arbitrariness that spawned the structured sentencing movement in the first place. More importantly, the post-Booker system does not solve the biggest problem with the pre-Booker system – that its architecture and 1 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 1 EElleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy aavvaaiillaabbllee aatt:: hhttttpp::////ssssrrnn..ccoomm//aabbssttrraacctt==22005555444400 institutional arrangements predisposed the Commission’s rule-making process to become a one- way upward ratchet which raised sentences often and lowered them virtually never. A. Post-Booker Advisory Guidelines Retain Nearly All the Defects of Pre-Booker Presumptive Guidelines The original guidelines were condemned as too complicated,2 both because they contained so many rules that were purportedly difficult to understand and, more tellingly, because they required parties to litigate and judges to adjudicate too many gradations of too many categories of facts. But the current system is even more complicated than the old. The guidelines themselves remain in place, almost unchanged. Probation officers are legally obliged to write presentence reports that are virtually identical to those they wrote before 2005. The parties are obliged to make the same sorts of factual presentations and legal arguments they made before 2005. District judges remain legally obliged, on pain of appellate reversal, to make the same multifarious findings of fact and to correctly apply the same voluminous rules to those facts to determine a guidelines range. Then, once the old familiar dance is complete, the judge does a few new steps to the tune of “§3553(a) factors” and only then imposes a sentence. Even the courts of appeals retain much of their old pre-Booker burden inasmuch as they remain obliged to entertain and decide questions regarding interpretation of guidelines rules, even though they now have little authority to insist that district courts sentence within the guidelines range. In short, all of the procedural and computational complexities that were so often the source of pre-Booker complaints about the guidelines remain mandatory, even as the product of that process has been declared the next thing to a legal nullity. The old guidelines were criticized because their many factual findings fed into a grid that subdivided the universe of possible sentences into 258 boxes which critics said served largely to create a reassuring illusion of rationally calibrated allocations of punishment. But the advisory system still uses the exact same grid. The old guidelines were derided because the numerous judge-found facts that determined a defendant’s guideline range were said to be a tail that wagged the sentencing dog, i.e., that post- conviction judge-found facts had a far greater influence on a defendant’s final sentence than the jury-found elements of the crime. But the same description applies to the post-Booker advisory system. Booker’s “solution” to the tail-wags-dog problem was not to eliminate or even reduce the number of judge-found sentence-affecting facts enumerated in federal statutes and guidelines, but was instead to imagine that, by declaring the Guidelines advisory, those facts would no longer move the dog of sentencing outcomes. But, of course, the dog still moves. In FY 2010 and FY 2011, about 55% of all federal defendants were sentenced within the applicable guideline 2 See, e.g., KATE STITH AND JOSÉ A. CABRANES, FEAR OF JUDGING: SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS 3, 91-93 (1998). 2 EElleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy aavvaaiillaabbllee aatt:: hhttttpp::////ssssrrnn..ccoomm//aabbssttrraacctt==22005555444400 range,3 and even among defendants sentenced outside the range, the range (determined by all those judicial findings of facts) still exercises a substantial anchoring effect. Given that, in the five years immediately preceding Blakely, guidelines compliance averaged around 65%,4 the best one can say about the advisory system is that the guidelines tail is still wagging the sentencing dog, but about 10% less vigorously. Curiously, the constitutional value those advancing the tail-wags-dog critique ostensibly sought to protect – the power of juries to decide sentence-affecting facts – has quietly vanished from the post-Booker conversation. If concern for jury power was ever more than a convenient stick with which to beat a system unpopular on other grounds, it may be worth noting that the practical effect of Booker on jury participation in sentence-determinative fact-finding has, if anything, been negative. The percentage of federal defendants convicted by trial, rather than plea, already low before Booker, has declined steadily since 2006,5 and in FY 2011dropped to 3.1%,6 the second lowest level in history.7 More importantly, the real procedural deficiency of the pre-Booker guidelines was never the absence of jury participation, but the low level of due process protection afforded defendants seeking to contest aggravating guidelines facts.8 The government’s burden of proof was a mere preponderance. The defendant had no discovery rights, other than the government’s general Brady obligation to disclose favorable evidence,9 no right of confrontation or cross- examination,10 and not even a right to an adversarial hearing in many instances.11 Even though, as noted above, the advisory guidelines continue to either determine or strongly influence the sentences of the vast majority of federal defendants, the former dearth of procedural due process persists. And precisely because the guidelines are now legally advisory, the argument for increasing procedural protections for guidelines fact-finding is dramatically weaker. As I wrote in 2010: 3 U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION, 2010 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS Tbl. N (2011) [hereinafter "2010 SOURCEBOOK"] (55% of defendants sentenced within range in FY 2010); U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary Quarterly Data Report, at 1 tbl. 1 (4th Quarter Release, through Oct. 31, 2011) (54.7% of defendants sentenced within range in FY 2011). 4 U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION, 2003 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS 53, Fig. G (2004) [hereinafter "2003 SOURCEBOOK"]. 5 2010 SOURCEBOOK, supra note 3, at Fig. C. 6 U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary Quarterly Data Report, at 42 tbl. 22 (4th Quarter Release, through Oct. 31, 2011). 7 2003 SOURCEBOOK, supra note 4, Fig. C (showing that, in 2002, the federal trial rate hit its all-time low of 2.9%). 8 See, e.g., James E. Felman, The Need for Procedural Reform in Federal Criminal Cases, 17 FED. SENT. RPTR. 261 (2005); Jose A. Cabranes, The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Where Do We Go From Here? 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 271, 274-75 (2000); Richard Smith-Monahan, Unfinished Business: The Changes Necessary to Make Guidelines Sentencing Fair, 12 FED. SENT. RPTR. 219 (2000). 9 U.S. v. Guerrero, 894 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1990). 10 U.S. v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 ROGER W. HAINES, JR., FRANK O. BOWMAN, III & JENNIFER WOLL, FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES HANDBOOK §6A1.3 Authors’ Discussion §4 (2010-2011 ed.) 3 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055440 Defendants [after Booker] are poorly placed to demand new procedural protections for the determination of Guidelines facts the Court insists have no legal consequence. If anything, the effect of Booker and its progeny will surely be to diminish due process protections in federal sentencing as trial and appellate judges become less and less concerned about accuracy in an “advisory” system. For anyone seriously concerned about the tail-wags-dog problem, Booker has created the worst of all worlds – a complex system of fact-dependent rules, which in truth heavily influence outcomes, but in which judges are cavalier about facts because the rules have no formal legal force.12 The old guidelines were criticized as the product of an opaque rule-making process not subject to the APA or other openness in government laws or to judicial review.13 Relatedly, many observers complained that Commission rulemaking was subject to congressional micromanagement, either by direct amendment of guidelines, statutory directive, or informal pressure. While the Commission has taken laudable voluntary steps to open up its processes in recent years, its institutional position in the government and the laws governing its rulemaking processes are unaffected by Booker. Perceptive critics of the pre-Booker guidelines were concerned that they abolished parole and with it the opportunity for a later second look at the appropriateness of the original judge- imposed sentence.14 Of course, this feature survives Booker. Thus, the legal authority to determine how much time a defendant will actually serve, which before 1987 was shared between district judges and the U.S. Parole Commission, and from 1987-2005 was shared between the Sentencing Commission and both district and appellate judges, is now effectively the sole province of individual district judges. In short, district judges now wield near-absolute power to determine the length of a defendant's incarceration, far more real-world sentencing power than at any time since the advent of a federal parole authority in 1910.15 The old guidelines were also disparaged for taking insufficient account of the individual characteristics of criminal defendants in setting offense levels and thus sentencing ranges. Critics noted that the guidelines prescribed precise increments of increased or reduced punishment for a multitude of offense-related factors, but included no such correlation between personal characteristics (other than criminal history) and offense level. Moreover, the old guidelines declared many such characteristics to be banned or “not ordinarily relevant” in 12 Frank O. Bowman, III, Debacle: How the Supreme Court Has Mangled American Sentencing Law and How It Might Yet Be Mended, 77 U. OF CHICAGO L. REV. 367, 469 (2010). 13 Ronald Wright, Sentencers, Bureaucrats, and the Administrative Law Perspective on the Federal Sentencing Commission, 79 CAL. L. REV. 1 (1991); Kate Stith and Karen Dunn, A Second Chance for Sentencing Reform: Establishing a Sentencing Agency in the Judicial Branch, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 217, 229 (2005). 14 See generally, Steven L. Chanenson, The Next Era of Sentencing Reform, 54 EMORY L.J. 377 (2005). 15 U.S. Department of Justice, History of the Federal Parole System, at 1, available at http://www.justice.gov/uspc/history.pdf. 4 awarding a departure outside the guidelines range.16 But the advisory guidelines have exactly the same structure. Calculation of the guideline range is still focused almost exclusively on offense characteristics and criminal history. And though the Commission has cautiously modified the wording of several sections of Chapter 5H relating to age, mental or emotional condition, and physical condition to permit consideration of these factors in departing from the range in a few more cases,17 the Commission has provided no guidance to courts in determining when or how these factors should be considered other than to say that it should be done in unusual or atypical cases. The real difference between the present system and the one it replaced lies not in any material improvement in the Guidelines themselves, but in the fact that judges are now legally at liberty to ignore them. B. The Curious Attraction of Booker’s Advisory System Here, at last, we come to the crux of the matter – the point that explains the surpassingly odd spectacle of folks who spent the first two decades of the guidelines era vehemently denouncing the guidelines for precisely the deficiencies listed above now mounting an impassioned defense of a post-Booker system that retains virtually every flaw they previously deplored. This precipitous reversal at least makes institutional sense in the case of judicial guidelines critics. For many judges, the main problem with the guidelines, particularly after the 2003 PROTECT Act, was their tight constraint of judicial sentencing discretion. Now, although some judges may consider the required fact-finding and guideline-calculating a nuisance, it is a ritual to which they are accustomed, it provides them with reassuring benchmarks for routine cases, and Booker has freed them either to use or ignore the results as suits them in particular cases. Of course, judges must provide some explanation for their sentences, but the reality is that any explanation not flamboyantly exceeding the boundaries of rationality will now survive appellate scrutiny. In short, district judges like advisory guidelines because they restore lost institutional authority. The affection of the defense community for advisory guidelines is based, not in concerns about process or the sanctity of judicial discretion, but in perceptions about outcomes. The true ground of the defense community’s objection to the old guidelines was never their structural and procedural defects. It was their severity. In the early days, the severity critique was primarily directed at drug cases, but over time the concern broadened to include many other offense classifications, recent high-profile examples including white collar crime and pornography. The defense community’s support of advisory guidelines is only explainable as the outgrowth of a 16 See, e.g., U.S.S.G. §5H1.1-5H1.6 (2004) (identifying various personal characteristics as “not ordinarily relevant” to a departure). 17 See, e.g., U.S.S.G. §5H1.4 (2010) (“Physical condition or appearance, including physique, may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted, if the condition or appearance, individually or in combination with other offender characteristics, is present to an unusual degree and distinguishes the case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines.”). 5 perception that the advisory system produces more favorable (i.e., more lenient) sentences for some appreciable class of defendants. This perception has some basis in fact. After all, in FY 2011, 43.6% of all defendants were sentenced below the applicable guideline range as compared to only 29.7% in FY 2003 (the last full year of sentencing data before the Blakely decision in 2004).18 If about 14% more defendants are now receiving below-range sentences, then surely some of them are receiving shorter sentences than would have been the case before Booker. This intuition seems to be borne out by Figure 1, which shows a notable decline in the length of the average federal sentence beginning in 2008, the year following the Supreme Court’s December 10, 2007 decisions in Kimbrough and Gall which made clear that the guidelines were henceforth to be really and truly advisory. Fig. 1: Average Sentence Length (Months) 56 60 50 50 51 52 51.1 51.8 51.8 49.6 46.8 50 44.3 42.7 40 30 20 10 0 Moreover, as Figure 2 below illustrates, during the last decade, there has been a near-perfect inverse correlation between sentence severity and the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion. As the percentage of sentences outside the applicable range increases, the length of the average sentence decreases, and vice versa. 18 Compare U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary Quarterly Data Report, tbl. 1 (4th Quarter Release, through Oct. 31, 2011), with 2003 SOURCEBOOK, supra note 2, at tbl. 26. 6 Fig. 2: Severity vs. Discretion 60 50 40 30 20 10 Kimbrough/Gall 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (before (after Blakely) Booker) Sentence Length (Mos) Outside range % However, a closer look at the data suggests that the recent decline in average sentence length is, at best, only partially attributable to the newly advisory character of the guidelines. It is widely understood that some of the recent decline in average sentence length is probably attributable, not to discretionary choices by judges, but to changes in statutes and guidelines governing crack and powder cocaine. What is less appreciated is that the marked decline in average federal sentence beginning in 2008 correlates directly with the recent explosion in relatively low-sentence immigration prosecutions. Figure 3 illustrates the point. FY 2008 may have been the year in which judges reading Kimbrough and Gall first understood that they had a green light to vary from the guidelines at will, but probably more importantly it also marked the beginning of a huge upsurge in immigration cases, which went from 17,592 or 24.2% of all federal cases in 200719 to roughly 30,000 or 35.2% of all cases in 2011.20 Given that the average sentence for an immigration case is 16.3 months, as compared to 70.2 months for drug trafficking, 82.7 months for firearms, and 22.7 months for fraud,21 the downward pressure exerted on the federal average sentence of this one change in case mix is immense. 19 U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION, 2007 SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS 12, tbl. 3 (2008). 20 U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary Quarterly Data Report 40-41 (4th Quarter Release, through Oct. 31, 2011). 21 Id. at 31, tbl. 19. 7 Fig. 3: Average Sentence vs. Immigration % 60 50 40 30 20 10 Kimbrough/Gall 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (before (after Blakely) Booker) Sentence Length (Mos) Immigration % The tenuousness of the correlation between declining national average sentence severity and post-Booker judicial discretion is reinforced by inspection of the Commission’s most recent data on average sentence within offense types. It appears that, since 2006, the average sentence for crack cases has declined sharply; average powder cocaine, marijuana, and illegal reentry sentences have dropped slightly; average sentences for alien smuggling, methamphetamine, and heroin cases have held roughly steady; and average firearms and property crime sentences have increased.22 These figures hold mixed messages for policy advocates. The defense community is surely right in thinking that advisory Guidelines have produced lower sentences for some thousands of defendants each year. Given the slow, but steady, increase in below-range sentences since 2007, they would also be right in thinking (even if they may not be impolitic enough to say it) that the percentage of defendants benefiting from this phenomenon is likely to increase steadily over time. On the other hand, those who fear that advisory guidelines have opened the floodgates of judicial leniency should be reassured that nothing apocalyptic has occurred so far and that average sentences for most classes of defendants are, at most, only slightly lower than historic averages in the guidelines period. The foregoing observations go far to explain the lack of agitation among the front-line sentencing actors for a thorough-going reform of the post-Booker status quo. For persons enmeshed in an operating system and highly attuned to any change in incremental advantage or disadvantage to their own positions, it makes perfect sense to ask, not whether Booker produced the best possible system, or even a system that, dispassionately considered, is very good, but 22 Id. at Figs. C-I. 8