Liberal Judge Stalls Sentencing of Third Offense Crack Dealer Citing Law Is Too Harsh

[Zappa]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/with_changes_to_federal_laws_f.html

With changes to federal laws for crack cocaine distribution afoot, Judge Michael A. Ponsor puts sentencing for Jayson Tavernier on hold

SPRINGFIELD - Though it may sound like a contradiction, Jayson Tavernier may be among the luckiest drug defendants in the city.

The 26-year-old Tavernier – who originally faced a mandatory life sentence for alleged repeated crack cocaine distribution after being charged for the third time in 2007 – had his sentence knocked down to 20 years through artful lawyering, 10 years through a plea agreement and, perhaps, even less now that a change in federal sentencing laws is afoot.

Tavernier, who appeared in U.S. District Court in Springfield on March 18 to face a certain decade in prison after a guilty plea, received a stay by Judge Michael A. Ponsor.

The judge bumped the sentencing for two months, citing the apparent movement in Congress to change federal sentencing laws for defendants charged with crack cocaine-related crimes.

“It would feel very uncomfortable to sentence somebody on a Thursday . . . that would no longer be valid a week or two weeks later,” Ponsor told Tavernier, a team of lawyers and more than a dozen of Tavernier’s family members who assembled in the courtroom.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month unanimously passed a measure to level out prison sentences for crack- and powder cocaine-related offenses. A 20-year-old sentencing disparity has vexed civil rights groups and forced judges’ hands when issuing sentences which are far higher for crack cocaine distribution than its powder counterpart.

The current ratio is 100 to 1, meaning a defendant with 100 grams of powder cocaine faces the same sentence as a defendant with only 1 gram of crack cocaine. The result is that crack cocaine defendants who are most often black, young and poor are disproportionally sentenced in contrast to white, suburban defendants caught with powder cocaine.

The proposed Senate bill would hike the amount of crack cocaine required to trip a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession with intent to distribute from 5 grams to 28 grams.

Also, holding a cocaine rock would no longer carry a mandatory minimum sentence, neutralizing that penalty. It would mark the first time Congress has reversed a mandatory minimum.

The House Judiciary Committee passed a similarly sentencing reform bill in July.

No full votes of the Congress have been scheduled on the matter.

However, Ponsor told parties in the courtroom during the Tavernier sentencing hearing that national change may well be coming, based on a trip he recently took to Washington, D.C.

“Now, I feel the odds are much greater that there may be some imminent change,” the judge said, noting that he rejected a previous defendant’s motion to stay a sentencing based on potential sentencing changes.

For Tavernier’s part, the government alleged he had two prior drug convictions which could trip a “career offender” clause in the law. Prosecutors sought a life sentence as a result.

Defense lawyers Linda J. Thompson, John Thompson and John Pucci challenged the previous convictions, prevailing on one. The result was Tavernier’s mandatory minimum dropped to 20 years.

He negotiated a 10-year minimum through a plea agreement last year. But, the potential change in the law now inserts more uncertainty into the mix since the amount of drugs Tavernier pleaded guilty to holding was less than the new standard.

“I’m going to have a hard time sentencing people, and nailing them with much harsher sentences,” than the new laws warrant, Ponsor said.

The judge added that both the anticipated and actual changes could throw the federal courts’ dockets askew.

“It will present the federal courts with a tremendous logistical problem . . . There would be tens of thousands of defendants who would be eligible for (re-sentencings) scattered all over the country,” Ponsor said, if the reform was retroactive, and hundreds more eligible for immediate release.

However, the judge noted, the conversation is so far hypothetical.

Tavernier’s case also presents an interesting set of circumstances since he already pleaded guilty in June 2009 to possession with intent, knowing the prospective penalty at the time, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex J. Grant, pointed out to the judge.

Tavernier has been rescheduled for sentencing on May 27.

WTF ????

This dirtbag gets caught three times for selling crack, pleads guilty and faces a mandatory life sentence, which gets knocked down to 20 years, then again to 10 years, and the judge still thinks that too harsh?

Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

 

[BossHarley]

Yes, i see mandatory sentencing as a very bad idea, and so do judges. It takes all discretion out of the judges hands. My uncle who is a very conservative US District Court judge is adamently opposed to them. I do not know the judge in question - why do you assume he is liberal?
I think it is really stupid for the sentences to be different for crack and powdered cocaine - same drug. Thats like the penalty for speeding in a sports car being a worse offense than in a mini-van?
Also, I really don't feel that small time drug dealers should be serving life in prison, while the big dealers, murderers and rapist are serving far shorter sentences.

 

[theGringo]

“It would feel very uncomfortable to sentence somebody on a Thursday . . . that would no longer be valid a week or two weeks later,” Ponsor told Tavernier, a team of lawyers and more than a dozen of Tavernier’s family members who assembled in the courtroom.

I imagine that if it were a gun charge, with some por schmuck LTC holder up on a storage or transportation violation and with harsher penalties imminent, this judge would have done the same thing ... delay sentencing.

 

[Zappa]

I do not know the judge in question - why do you assume he is liberal?

Here's a little bio on him:

>>>On the recommendation of U.S. Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Ponsor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1993 to a seat vacated by Frank Freedman. Ponsor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on February 10, 1994 on Senate vote and received commission on February 14, 1994.<<<

Do you really think that Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton would nominate a conservative to that position?

I think it is really stupid for the sentences to be different for crack and powdered cocaine - same drug. Thats like the penalty for speeding in a sports car being a worse offense than in a mini-van?
Also, I really don't feel that small time drug dealers should be serving life in prison, while the big dealers, murderers and rapist are serving far shorter sentences.

OK, maybe the mandatory life sentence is a bit harsh, but this guy is a THREE TIME OFFENDER, but I don't feel that the reduced penalty of 10 years is too harsh for this crime.
If you take the teeth out of the law it just becomes a bad joke.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Yes, i see mandatory sentencing as a very bad idea, and so do judges. It takes all discretion out of the judges hands. My uncle who is a very conservative US District Court judge is adamently opposed to them. I do not know the judge in question - why do you assume he is liberal?
I think it is really stupid for the sentences to be different for crack and powdered cocaine - same drug. Thats like the penalty for speeding in a sports car being a worse offense than in a mini-van?
Also, I really don't feel that small time drug dealers should be serving life in prison, while the big dealers, murderers and rapist are serving far shorter sentences.

why are mandatory sentences a bad thing? I *want* to take discretion and opinion out of the judges hands. I don't want a judge to be able to say, "awww he is solely a victim of circumstance, we should give this repeat offender ANOTHER chance."

 

[mikem317]

Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Yup. The defendant didn't hurt anybody. He didn't coerce anybody or threaten anybody (that we know of course). He simply was selling a substance that doesn't have any state sanctioning.

 

[Kalahari]

The problem I see is one consenting adult selling a product to another consenting adult in a non-coercive fashion and being put in jail for it.

Bleh, Mike beat me to it

 

[JackDaniels]

I do not know the judge in question - why do you assume he is liberal? Thats like the penalty for speeding in a sports car being a worse offense than in a mini-van?
Also, I really don't feel that small time drug dealers should be serving life in prison, while the big dealers, murderers and rapist are serving far shorter sentences.

Only a liberal could see the benefit in giving a third offense crack dealer a slap on the wrist.

No crack and cocaine are not the same. Just because they come from the same powder does not mean that they have the same effects. The chemical properties change when the substance is heated and the drug has different effects.

Sure drug dealers shouldn't be serving more time than rapists and murderers. But the problem isn't with the amount of time that the drug dealers are serving. The problem is with the small amount of time that the rapists and murderers are serving.

 

[Kalahari]

The problem with mandatory minimums is that all crimes are not the same...it seems that by the legal definition, the Oklahoma pharmacist committed murder. But I wouldn't say it was as egregious an offense as some murders committed by true threats-to-society. So should they be punished exactly the same? In my opinion, no..

 

[mikem317]

The problem with mandatory minimums is that all crimes are not the same...it seems that by the legal definition, the Oklahoma pharmacist committed murder. But I wouldn't say it was as egregious an offense as some murders committed by true threats-to-society. So should they be punished exactly the same? In my opinion, no..

+1. Additionally, minimum sentencing laws represent an existential threat to the checks and balances system; IMHO, this gives the legislative branch more power over the judicial. States should also yield wide discretion. If sentencing conventions in one state are perceived as "inadequate" or "too harsh" or whatever, the people will probably vote with their feet. All part of states' rights. This competition among the states should be encouraged. Federal intervention in these matters tend to mute this, which is also unfortunate.

Judges should have wide discretion over sentencing conventions for this reason and the one you mentioned, Kalahari.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

Yup. The defendant didn't hurt anybody. He didn't coerce anybody or threaten anybody (that we know of course). He simply was selling a substance that doesn't have any state sanctioning.

...and didn't pay any taxes on income earned

 

[cb1]

why are mandatory sentences a bad thing? I *want* to take discretion and opinion out of the judges hands. I don't want a judge to be able to say, "awww he is solely a victim of circumstance, we should give this repeat offender ANOTHER chance."

Mandatory minimums can result in more criminals staying on the street because more cases go to trial. If someone was to be arrested for a crime and faced a mandatory minimum of 20 years, they're going to opt go to trial instead of pleading guilty. It would be their only chance of staying out of jail. On the other hand, if the same individual has the opportunity to plead to a lesser charge (ex: possession instead of distribution) they are fairly likely to take a plea deal and go away for only a couple years. Why do you think we have so many people in jail? Most of them took a deal. Take that incentive away and more people will go to trial where there is not only a chance of them winning outright but the chance they walk on any number of variables or technicalities.

I too grow tired of judges taking pity on repeat offenders. But I'm more in favor of whatever is most likely to put repeat offenders in jail.

 

[mikem317]

...and didn't pay any taxes on income earned

Another arcane "law" that needs to go the way of the Dodo.

 

[Bill Nance]

why are mandatory sentences a bad thing? I *want* to take discretion and opinion out of the judges hands. I don't want a judge to be able to say, "awww he is solely a victim of circumstance, we should give this repeat offender ANOTHER chance."

I''ll remember this if you ever get busted on some technical weapons charge with a mandatory minimum. Or better yet, have bail denied like the guy in Manchester after Mass passes the no bail on any gun charges law. After all, you WANT common sense and any sense of proportion or justice removed from all judges.