How Does Sentencing Work in a Criminal Case?
Photo: "Anatomy of a Murder," George C. Scott and Jimmy Stewart, 1959
On October 23, in Utah’s Third District Court in Salt Lake City, Judge Vernice Trease will sentence Ayoola Ajayi to life in prison for the murder of University of Utah student MacKenzie Lueck.
On June 17, 2019 Ajayi met Lueck at a park in North Salt Lake, murdered her, burned her body in his yard and, as police closed in, took the body and buried it in an unmarked grave in Logan Canyon in Northern Utah. On October 8, Ajayi pleaded guilty to the murder, agreeing to deal with prosecutors that gives a life sentence without parole instead of the possibility of the death penalty if he was convicted in court of the murder.
Perhaps nothing in the justice system is more misunderstood than the sentencing process. It’s happened to all of us…we hear or read of a particularly gruesome case, followed by a conviction or a guilty plea, then a relatively light sentence, and the natural reaction is, “What? How could the judge do something like that? Where is the JUSTICE?!?!”
In August, in Utah’s Eighth District Court, Judge Samuel Chiara sentenced Lisa Jo Vanderlinden to a year in jail and 14 years of probation in a highly publicized child homicide case in Duchesne. Many people, including Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, were angry. How, they wondered, could a judge give a sentence like that for killing a child when the prosecutors were asking for a sentence of five years to life?
The answer lies in two places: sentencing guidelines and two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Blakely v. Washington 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Sentencing guidelines exist on both the state and federal levels. According to the Utah Sentencing Commission, sentences are determined on principles of the best available data, public input, and professional judgment and experience. The goals of criminal sentencing in Utah are to “manage the risk to the public, reduce the risk to the public and provide restitution to victims.” Sentencing guidelines take into consideration the nature of the crime, the criminal history of the defendant, a pre-sentence report provided by Adult Probation and Parole, and other factors. Here are Utah’s sentencing guidelines and matrix.
Prior to Blakely, judges could use details not determined by a jury or admitted by a defendant in determining a sentence. In the Blakely case, a 5-4 majority (Scalia, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Thomas) declared that factors not found by a jury or admitted by a defendant could not be used in determining a sentence because doing so violated the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to trial by a jury.
That’s why Judge Chiara couldn’t sentence Vanderlinden to the harsher prison sentence requested by prosecutors. Vanderlinden’s plea only admitted neglect, not intentional abuse, and therefore, under Blakely, Chiara couldn’t sentence Vanderlinden based on facts that hadn’t been proven to a jury or stipulated in the agreement.
In the short time between Blakely and Booker, one case became the standard for the need for federal sentence reform: US v. Angelos, 345 F.Supp.2d 1227.
Weldon Angelos was a 24-year old first-time offender convicted of selling a total of 24 ounces of marijuana on three different occasions to a federal informant. Federal sentencing guidelines for such a crime recommended a sentence of between six and eight years. However, Angelos also faced three counts of possessing a weapon, during two of the $350 marijuana deals and at his home when he was arrested. Under 18 USC 924(c), prosecutors were able to “stack” the three firearms offenses, adding a minimum mandatory sentence of 55 years for Angelos. In effect, Angelos received a life sentence for selling 24 ounces of pot while possessing a gun.
The judge in the case, Paul Cassell, found the sentence incredibly unjust, but his hands were tied by the minimum mandatory sentences of the statute. “The court believes that to sentence Mr. Angelos to prison for the rest of his life is unjust, cruel, and even irrational,” Cassell wrote in his decision. “The sentence more than doubles the sentence given to an aircraft hijacker, a terrorist who detonates a bomb in a public place, a racist who attacks a minority with the intent to kill and inflicts permanent or life-threatening injuries, or a second-degree murderer.”
Judge Cassell later petitioned President Barack Obama for the release of Angelos, and President Obama commuted Angelos’ sentence in May of 2016 after Angelos served 13 years.
The facts in the Ayoola Ajayi murder case have been determined by the plea agreement, which was negotiated with the agreement of the victim’s family. The role of the judge is to apply the law to those facts, without considering facts that were not admitted in the plea deal.
What do you think? Do some crimes deserve minimum mandatory sentences? How much flexibility should judges have in determining a sentence? Did the Supreme Court get it right in Blakely and Booker? Should prosecutors be able to “stack” charges to increase a prison sentence?
Check out this video of the Utah State Bar’s “Law School for Journalists” on sentencing, presented by the Utah Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Both Booker and Blakely find violation of Amendment VI, wherein the accused has a right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, a lawyer, to know who the accuser is, and particular to this blog, the nature of the charges and evidence entered in court relevant to the accusations and the accused.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking I think that’s fair. If a jury must weigh all the evidence to do its job, it can’t consider other factors. Same for a judge. Otherwise, this goes beyond the boundaries of the Sixth Amendment as to the evidence entered into court. Giving wide latitude for a judge to determine other factors beyond those that are aggravating or mitigating seems expansive of the power of the court. A person charged is convicted (or acquitted) based on facts proven at trial, which are used for sentencing, along with information from a prosecutor looking out for the state’s interests, victims, attorneys etc.
That said, giving a judge some discretion (which is pretty baked in for Utah Guidelines) is a double-edged sword in that it allows the judge to be the final arbiter (yes that’s her job) but could negatively impact the perpetrator … OR could help that person if consideration is given to the risk assessment done before sentencing. How much might a judge weigh previous crimes? Unconscious bias? Or any other factors.? Yes, the latitude could benefit or handicap a sentence.
Let’s talk Brock Turner for a minute. He’s the ex-Stanford standout swimmer who pleaded not guilty to five counts of rape and associated charges. He was convicted, and sentenced to six months in jail, three years’ probation, required to register as a sex offender (for the rest of his life) and to complete a rehabilitation program for sex offenders. He was released after three months (!). So … bad for the victim, good for the rapist. Except the judge Aaron Persky was recalled and California now mandates prison terms for rapists whose victims are unconscious. And the victim Chantel Miller shed her anonymity in order to talk about her assault, its impacts, the resultant trial and fallout, which to me appears empowering, though of course I can’t speak for her and the lifelong impact of that heinous crime.
Mandatory minimum sentences should be part of a sentencing structure and are in Utah, under Utah Code § 76-3-406. Examples include aggravated kidnapping, aggravated murder, murder, forcible sexual abuse, rape etc. In the case of Ayoola Ajayi, with an especially grisly set of facts, he pleaded in order to take the death penalty off the table and to have other charges dropped (kidnapping and child pornography, unrelated to this case), with consideration given to the family of the victim MacKenzie Lueck. Seems open and shut. If you peruse social media, there is a lot of opinion on both sides and everything in between. Personally, I think it was a good deal.
Last, I need to say this blog post is an excellent piece of writing and definitely illuminating. Thank you (Matt?) !
Seems like you have to weave common sense with law. You take a crime, reasonably determine what an appropriate sentence is, then back into it - using law.
DeleteI like your brevity, Gabe. And I agree.
DeleteHow do you address those who have varying common sense or who determines what common sense is. To some fundamentalist no punishment it to severe and that is common sense to them.
DeleteI think it all depends! Determining if the “crime fits the punishment” is a difficult task. Some crimes do seem to warrant minimum mandatory sentences, however each scenario isn’t exactly the same. Facts, circumstances, and other issues make it nearly impossible to treat everyone exactly the same. I believe creating some type of standard helps establish what crimes fit the sentence. Looking into aggravating and mitigating circumstances can also help determine what crime fits a punishment. I think a judge should be allowed to consider that when sentencing. Stacking charges to increase prison sentences is another matter of “it depends.” In some circumstances it seems warranted. However in the case of US vs Angelos, 345 F. Supp.2d 1227, it seemed harsh.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting to me. A long time ago my first job out of college was with the State of Utah DCFS. I was a CPS investigator and the last two years with sexually abused children. Almost all of my cases had minimum mandatory sentencing. Based off emotional stories in the past of abuse not being addressed in sentencing there was a strong opinion that these were needed. The problem is the ability to determine the best sentence was replaced with a big hammer to smash the issue. Public revolution to some crimes makes these law easy to pass. While working there I met some very horrible people that should never leave prison and I met some people that made a mistake but could be helped. If a person was well represented they would plea bargain out of the minimums. Some were so penitent that they wanted to confess everything and ended up worse off then the manipulative ones. I agree that there needs to be very consistent standards to follow but there is still a lot of un-justice going on. These decisions need to be made by those trained to assess the situation and first look after the public good and then the needs of rehabilitating the offenders.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you one story. I was in court one day when a single mother who was overwhelmed with life used a belt on her children's behind and then immediately went to the police station in tears asking for help. The office offered no help and did not refer to family services but filed child abuse charges. The prosecutor with the confession in hand went to court recommending a still sentence. The judge (a good judge) started asking questions. He knew I was in the room from DCFS and ordered me to meet with the mother while he work down his docket. When we came back in front of the court the judge asked if I felt services were appropriate. I said absolutely they were. He then order me to see that DCFS provided her with services. It case you don't know that is not the normal process. It this case I think justice was served.
I wish I had a better solution to see that justice was always served but too much of it relies on the efforts of the people involved. Bad actions have led to public demand for minimum standards and tied the judges hands and expediency in prosecution has led to minimal charges.
John, very insightful story. I’d be curious to know if you thought there were sufficient services and programs for parents who feel they are at their wits end. I think it took a lot of courage for the mother to go to the police station. She could have gone off a cliff.
DeleteI think it also makes a difference regarding if you have the means to be represented by counsel. Having someone well versed in the legal system can make all the difference.
There are lot of services but getting access to them is not easy. In this case the court had to order them. This was in a small town and the service had to be provided by driving to Provo where I worked. The officers should have been trained on help here but were not. This is a good example of the current debates on officers being trained as social workers as a way of avoiding punitive services.
DeleteReality is law enforcement gives themselves awards for just this behavior because it's about stats. Want an award for the most arrests?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not know a lot about sentencing, but I think there is a good case for the War on Drugs in the 1980s contributing to harsher sentencing in some cases of drug related crimes than a violent offence. This does not seem right. There have been efforts to correct this, but it doesn't seem to be fixing the inequity very quickly.
ReplyDelete