AG Eric Holder: No More Super Mandatory Minimums to Punish Defendants Who Want a Trial

I am pleased to see reforms to this particularly horrendous practice routinely used by Federal Prosecutors (read below). When my son was being prosecuted back in 2004 the Prosecutor offered him one Plea deal, and believe me, it was no DEAL. Corey had to plead guilty to things he was not guilty of, as well as agree to longterm punishments in addition to his prison sentence (a monitary judgement that would affect his entire life post release). The ‘deal’ he signed was a ten year sentence (the manditory minimum sentence for the charges the prosecution leveled against him), which, at sentencing, the prosecutor upped to 12 1/2 years (!!), tacking on extra time for a few driving infractions he termed "past criminal history". Why, you might ask, would my son ever have signed such a plea ‘deal’ ? Because if he didn’t, IF he took the Govt to trial, as was his right under the constitution, the prosecutor promised he would see he got 25 yrs to life in prison if found guilty, and to ‘trust him’, he WOULD be found guilty.

With the minimum and mandatory sentencing structure all the power is in the prosecutors hands, he decides what charges to press, he decides the punishment, he is judge and jury. A first time, non violent marijuana offense and my son could still be wasting his life in prison had he turned down that plea, exercised his right to a trial. This has been Justice in America.

Thankfully we are FINALLY seeing the first slow beginnings toward reform and change, after decades and more of harsh, draconian sentencing policies that have created a bloated prison industrial complex and wasted the lives of millions. Heres the article from FAMM, dated October 1st:

Attorney General Eric Holder has issued a memo prohibiting prosecutors from using the threat of enhanced mandatory minimum sentences solely to force criminal defendants to plead guilty in drug trafficking cases. These super-sized mandatory minimums, called “section 851 enhancements,” allow prosecutors to ensure a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence is doubled or even increased to life in prison.

“FAMM applauds the Attorney General’s repudiation of this heavy-handed practice,” said FAMM General Counsel Mary Price in a statement. “The trial penalty is intolerable. This guidance to prosecutors makes it quite clear that massively enhanced drug mandatory minimums may not be invoked absent cause. While the practice of threatening defendants with the trial penalty to induce them to plead guilty should be abandoned altogether, this is a good start.”
How the 851 enhancement works: If the prosecutor advises the court of its intention to “notice” a drug defendant’s prior convictions, the court must double the underlying mandatory minimum facing a defendant with one prior drug trafficking conviction. In some cases, if the defendant has two priors, the section 851 enhancement requires the court to impose a sentence of life in prison.

In short, the section 851 enhancement provides federal prosecutors complete discretion to seek, and requires judges to impose, life sentences for even non-violent drug offenders.
Prosecutors routinely used the section 851 threat to pressure defendants to plead guilty. If the defendant agrees to plead guilty, the government would not “notice” the priors and the defendant would serve the unenhanced mandatory minimum of five or ten years. If instead the defendant rejects the offer, goes to trial and is convicted, she suffers the “trial penalty,” and the section 851 enhancement transforms a sentence of five years into 10, a sentence of 10 years into 20, or even life without parole.