Experts Debate if Ex-Deputies’ Sentences Fit Their Crimes

All seven of the former Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies convicted of participating in a massive money-skimming scheme will spend less time in jail than San Fernando Valley carpet swindler Barry Minkow.

But most of them are likely to serve more time than former junk bond king Michael Milken.

The former members of an elite narcotics unit were sentenced Wednesday to terms ranging from two to five years for stealing $893,000 in confiscated drug proceeds and other crimes. Under current federal sentencing laws, they will serve at least 85% of the sentences.

Are the sentences they received adequate in light of the nature of their crimes, given that U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie said the evidence “revealed unprecedented corruption, probably never before seen in the history of law enforcement in this city”?

A number of lawyers and law professors interviewed Thursday said they thought the sentences were within federal sentencing guidelines and suitable given the nature of the crimes.

“It sounds to me like very substantial sentences for a public corruption case,” said Prof. Stephen Schulhoffer of the University of Chicago Law School. He said the sentences should “send a clear message to people involved in activity of that kind.”

“That type of sentence is no slap on the wrist,” said Prof. Philip Johnson, a criminal law specialist at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. He stressed that most of the deputies would be in prison longer than Milken, who was sentenced to 10 years for securities fraud, but is expected to serve only 3 1/3 years.

However, some thought the sentences were inadequate. By comparison, Minkow was sentenced to 25 years, of which is he is expected to serve between 8 and 17 years.

“The sentences strike me as light, given the amount of money that was skimmed,” said UCLA law professor Robert Garcia, a former federal prosecutor in New York City. “I would have been very disappointed by this sentence given the number of people involved and the wide ranging conspiracy.”

But the lead prosecutor in the case, Assistant U.S. Atty. Thomas A. Hagemann, said he was satisfied with the sentences, calling them “substantial and serious.”

Judy Clarke, director of the Federal Public Defender Service in San Diego, said it was difficult to compare these sentences to others because “you don’t often have cops ripping off” drug money. A spokesman for the U.S. Sentencing Commission said there were not enough public corruption cases that had been sentenced under the guidelines to provide any comparative statistics.

The federal sentencing guidelines were enacted in an attempt to eliminate disparities in sentencing from judge to judge and district to district. They are extremely complicated and many judges have said they allow far too little discretion. In the last two years, two California federal judges cited their antagonism to the guidelines as a principal reason for quitting their jobs. The guidelines have been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“They’re here, we have to live with them,” said Jay Lichtman, who represented former deputy Ronald E. Daub in the Los Angeles corruption trial. Rafeedie gave Daub five years, to be followed by three years of supervised probation. Daub’s case is illustrative of the complicated process Rafeedie went through in reaching the sentences.

Last December, a jury found Daub, a 17-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Department, guilty of six felony charges--conspiracy, theft, tax evasion, money laundering and two counts of structuring financial transactions to evade federal currency reporting requirements.

He and Eufrasio G. Cortez were found guilty on more charges than the other defendants. They ultimately were sentenced to more time in prison than the other defendants.

However, their sentences could have been even greater under the guidelines.

Rafeedie first set a base level for Daub’s sentence, as prescribed by the guidelines. Then, he said he would enhance the sentence based on three other factors--Daub knew the money was drug proceeds, obstructed justice through suborning perjury and abused his position of trust as a law enforcement officer.

This meant a sentence of 78 to 97 months, according to the guidelines. But Lichtman argued successfully that Daub’s sentence had been enhanced from the start because the government had prosecuted only him and Cortez for money laundering, even though those charges could have been brought against the others. Ultimately, Rafeedie indicated that he considered this a persuasive argument.

The judge noted that simply adding up the numbers, according to the guidelines, would have meant significant disparity of sentences among the seven defendants. He said that would have been unwarranted under the circumstances.

“These defendants basically engaged in the same level of misconduct,” Rafeedie said. “They all equally participated in the conspiracy.”

Rafeedie said he was going to reduce the gap among the sentences. He ultimately sentenced Daub to 60 months.

Daub’s attorney Lichtman said he was “amazed” when the judge pronounced his final decision because he anticipated that Rafeedie would stick by the tentative ruling he stated earlier in the hearing.

There has been a wide range of sentences handed out by federal judges in cases involving public officials and law enforcement officers, depending on the nature of the offense, the public service record of the defendant and other factors.

For example, last year, a former Florida police chief was sentenced to 24 1/2 years in prison after being convicted of drug trafficking while working in law enforcement. In 1984, a Philadelphia federal judge sentenced a former deputy police commissioner to 18 years in prison for his role in an extortion ring that collected $300,000 from an illegal gambling operation in the city.

On the other hand, several aides of former President Ronald Reagan received community service instead of jail time for first-time offenses, including Oliver L. North and former deputy chief of staff, Michael K. Deaver. Deaver was fined $100,000 and sentenced to 1,500 hours of community service in 1988 after a felony perjury conviction. North was fined $150,000 and sentenced to 1,200 hours of community service after being convicted in 1989 on charges of altering and destroying secret documents, helping to mislead Congress and illegally accepting the gift of a $13,800 home security system. A federal appeals court later reversed the conviction.