The following is a summary from The Federal Defenders New York Blog. It was posted on Wed. May 25, 2016. It was contributed by an FAC Board Member.
The Issue of Collateral Consequences is ‘catching the eye’ of federal judges. When I attended the recent Federal Sentencing Conf. in Orlando, the federal judges more than once referenced the issue of ‘collateral consequences.” It really caught my attention even though this was a drug conviction case. There is much available when you do a search. The following is just from one of the sites. Judge Frederic Block issued a 43 page opinion in the U.S. v, Nesbeth, 15-CR-18 (FB)
Blog title: “Judge Block Issues Opinion Calling for Reconsideration of Collateral Consequences for Felony Convictions and Highlighting the Role Collateral Consequences Should Play in 3553(a) analysis.”
At issue is a ruling given by Judge Block in a jury trial in which he imposed a one-year probationary sentence in a case with a guidelines range of 33-41 months. His lengthy opinion addressed his ruling “because sufficient attention has not been paid at sentencing” to the many automatic collateral consequences that flow from a defendant’s felony conviction. Many of the consequences, he continued to write, “serve no useful function other than to further punish criminal defendants after they have completed their court-imposed sentences” but their effect “can be devastating.” 9 He also stated in another section that consequences can hamper rehabilitation efforts.)
His conclusion was that the collateral consequences, particularly the conviction would have on Ms. Nesbeth’s ability to pursue her planned career as a teacher and principal, resulted in sufficient punishment and that NO JAIL Sentence (caps are mind) was necessary to meet the statutory sentencing objectives.
While much is written about Judge Block’s opinion, some points include:
He cited rulings and previous opinions that the prosecutor is obligated to bring collateral consequences to the attention of the sentencing court. He also instructed that the “Probation department should include a collateral consequences section in all future presentence reports” because the collateral consequences are relevant to the appropriate kind of sentence, the appropriate sentence within the guideline range, and any basis for departing from the guideline range.
Judge Block’s opinion contains “fantastic’ language about the severe impact of collateral consequences, consequences criminal defense lawyers know may be more punishing toward clients than the actual sentence handed out by the court. (MY Interjection here—this is VERY true as far as the registry is concerned.!!)
The opinion contains information regarding resources that list collateral consequences, such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ treatise: Collateral Consequences of Criminal convictions: Law, Policy, and Practice and the America Br Association’s collateral consequences database accessible.
The particular post that I have summarized can be found at http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/edny-update-judge-blovk-issues
It was posted by Peggy Cross-Goldenberg
Recent Comments