Federal White Collar Sentencing in the United States: A Work in Progress

At first blush, it seems odd for an American contributor to an international conference on sentencing to focus on high end federal white collar sentencing. After all, federal cases make up a relatively small part of the U.S. criminal justice system. (Between October 2005 and September 2006, about 1,132,290 people were sentenced for a felony in state courts, and 73,009 in federal courts.) Even within the federal system, white collar cases of all sorts are a relatively small part of a criminal docket dominated by immigration, drug, and gun cases, which together comprised nearly 73% of all federal cases in 2009. And the crimes involving fraud, deceit, theft, embezzlement, insider trading, and other forms of deception that accounted for 9.5% of 2009 cases includes a great many offenders and offenses of the middling sort. Moreover, what is meant by high end anyway? Does a vague directional reference allow one to sidestep the longstanding scholarly debate about defining white collar crime

\u27Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

This essay introducing the June 2006 edition of the Federal Sentencing Reporter (Vol. 18, No. 5) describes two important contributions to the movement for real reform of the federal sentencing system. First, Professor Bowman summarizes the recommendations of the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative (CPSI) report on federal sentencing. The CPSI report, reproduced in this Issue, cautions against any over-hasty legislative response to the Supreme Court\u27s decision in United States v. Booker, suggests some near-term improvements to the existing federal sentencing system, and then sets out a framework for a reformed and markedly simplified federal sentencing regime. Second, Professor Bowman describes the contents of a set of Model Sentencing Guidelines for the federal system drafted by a working group of sentencing experts and based on the framework set out in the CPSI report. These Model Guidelines, which make up the bulk of this Issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter, contain a simplified sentencing table and a revised approach to criminal history; procedural rules governing the determination of facts that determine sentencing range and facts relevant to setting sentences within range; simplified guidelines for economic crimes, environmental crimes, firearms offenses, immigration, perjury, and obstruction of justice; guidelines for sentencing factors applicable to all offense types, including rules governing adjustments for guilty pleas; and rules governing departures. Each of these segments contains model guidelines language and advisory notes, as well as drafter\u27s commentary explaining the issues faced and choices made in the course of composing the model rules. The text of the Model Guidelines and drafter\u27s commentaries will be separately posted on SSRN

Nothing is Not Enough: Fix the Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System

This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing considering whether the advisory guidelines system created by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker should be modified or replaced. I argue that it should

McDade Amendment: Moving Towards a Meaningful Limitation on Wrongful Prosecutorial Contact with Represented Parties

In Part I, this article will examine the anti-contact rule, its history, goals, and the path it has taken in the context of prosecutorial contact with represented parties. Part II will discuss the McDade Amendment, its genesis and purpose. Part III will discuss the struggle undertaken by the Department of Justice [hereinafter DOJ ] as it seeks to exempt its lawyers from the anti-contact rule. Finally, Part IV looks at arguments for and against prosecutorial exemption from the anti-contact rule

McDade Amendment: Moving Towards a Meaningful Limitation on Wrongful Prosecutorial Contact with Represented Parties

In Part I, this article will examine the anti-contact rule, its history, goals, and the path it has taken in the context of prosecutorial contact with represented parties. Part II will discuss the McDade Amendment, its genesis and purpose. Part III will discuss the struggle undertaken by the Department of Justice [hereinafter DOJ ] as it seeks to exempt its lawyers from the anti-contact rule. Finally, Part IV looks at arguments for and against prosecutorial exemption from the anti-contact rule