« Rail to the Chief | Main | The PICS Case and the Rhetoric of Conservatism »
July 3, 2007
Scooter's Law
A federal grand jury started to investigate. Lawrence testified, and he lied: he said he'd never received the pricing information.
Lawrence was indicted for making false statements to the grand jury, and for conspiring to defraud the United States. A jury convicted him.
The federal sentencing guidelines produced a range of 10 to 16 months for Mr. Lawrence. The judge, however, granted what's called a "downward departure" to Mr. Lawrence, and sentenced him to 6 months' home confinement and probation.
Why did the judge depart downward from the sentencing range? The judge noted that Mr. Lawrence was 52 years old, had no criminal record, had served in the military, and had a superb reputation in the community. He had risen from humble beginnings to success in legitimate business. In the context of this industrious, law-abiding life, the judge found that the offense conduct was aberrational. The judge also took into account that Lawrence's 80 employees would likely lose their jobs if he were jailed and that his business would suffer significant collateral consequences (like debarment from government contracts and civil liability) that mitigated the need for imprisonment.
The government appealed Mr. Lawrence's sentence, arguing -- quite rightly, in my view -- that there was nothing so unusual about the circumstances of Mr. Lawrence and his crimes that the guideline range of 10 to 16 months' incarceration ought not apply.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the government and vacated Mr. Lawrence's sentence, directing that the district court resentence Mr. Lawrence to a term of incarceration selected from within the 10-to-16-month range that the sentencing guidelines said was fair and appropriate for people like Mr. Lawrence.
Why do I tell you about this rather ordinary white-collar case? Well, yesterday, as you probably know, President Bush determined that Scooter Libby's prison sentence of thirty months -- a sentence that the trial judge selected from within the range that the sentencing guidelines indicated were appropriate and fair for a case like Libby's. In commuting Libby's sentence to eliminate all incarceration, the President was picking up on the idea proposed by William G. Otis in a much-discussed op/ed a few weeks ago in the Washington Post.
President Bush explained his decision to eliminate jail time as follows:
"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.The court system got things exactly right in Mr. Lawrence's case; there was nothing so unusual about it as to disengage the sentencing guidelines and counsel no jail time at all for him.I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."
By the same line of reasoning, the President got things badly wrong in Mr. Libby's case yesterday. There was nothing so unusual about it -- apart from Libby's friendship with the Vice President and his loyalty to the President -- as to disengage the nation's sentencing laws and counsel no jail time at all. It's interesting that the President didn't reduce Libby's term of incarceration, which he had the power to do. He completely eliminated it.
Outrageous.
Oh, and one other interesting little footnote: the government lawyer who successfully argued for the incarceration of Wilbert Lawrence was Willam G. Otis.
Posted by Eric at July 3, 2007 10:12 AM