Panel Backs Up Prosecutors on Sentence Deals

Prosecutors, not judges, get to decide whether a federal defendant who has cooperated with authorities deserves a sentence shorter than the normal minimum, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a judge’s decision to depart from the federal minimum sentence in a case where the prosecutor had not recommended it.

Federal sentencing guidelines give that discretion to prosecutors, the three-member panel said.

The appellate court rejected the defendant’s claim that the rule violates the constitutional due-process guarantee and added that Congress could have made a defendant’s cooperation irrelevant to sentencing if it had wished.

The defendant, identified in court papers as Jane Doe, had pleaded guilty to charges of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. She sought to get a lighter sentence by providing law enforcement officials with names, addresses and other information identifying alleged drug traffickers.

Prosecutors did not seek a sentence below the federal sentencing guideline, which sets a term for that offense between 21 and 27 months and a fine between $5,000 and $50,000.

But U.S. District Judge Harold Greene sentenced the defendant to four months of incarceration, two years of supervised release and a $1,000 fine. The judge determined that the defendant had provided substantial help to prosecutors and that their decision not to seek a lighter sentence was arbitrary.

Greene also objected to the prosecutors’ use of a “departure committee” to determine when to seek a sentence below the minimum, saying it was a “secret” panel with procedures unknown to the public.

A number of federal judges have complained about the sentencing guidelines, which took effect in 1987 and were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1989. Some judges contend that the sentencing rules take away their discretion in cases with unusual circumstances.

The appellate court, in ruling that Greene overstepped his bounds, said that leaving the discretion to prosecutors “is a practical device that allows the government to give appropriate weight to its investigative and enforcement activities.”

U.S. Atty. Jay Stephens said he was pleased with the ruling, which he noted conforms with decisions by other appellate courts. He added that in the defendant’s case, “a determination was made by law enforcement that the defendant did not provide substantial assistance to other law enforcement investigations.”

The appellate court said judges may impose a sentence below the minimum for cooperating defendants in cases where the prosecutor violated a formal cooperation agreement, sought to punish a defendant for exercising constitutional rights or relied on an unjustifiable standard such as race.

The court-appointed defense attorney in the case, Charles B. Wayne, said he was disappointed in the decision but could not comment further until he read the ruling.