Mandatory minimum sentences have, for years, been the subject of complaints from the bench, the defense bar and academics. But this year, these criticisms are taking hold—and all three branches of the federal government are getting into the fray.
Some district court judges are in open rebellion against mandatory minimums and the Sentencing Guidelines that are tied to them. For example, in sentencing a defendant earlier this year for a drug trafficking crime, Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York rejected the guidelines-recommended range because the guidelines are tied to the quantity-driven mandatory minimums.1 Judge Jack Weinstein of the same district issued a 400-page sentencing memorandum, finding that the five-year statutory minimum for distributing child pornography constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Remarkably, only a few hours after the Second Circuit reversed Weinstein’s sentence and required him to impose at least the five-year mandatory minimum, Weinstein issued a nine-page memorandum forcefully reiterating his view that the mandatory minimum sentence was unjust.2
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
