Denver, Co.—Four former U.S. attorneys general and numerous other former prosecutors have taken a stand against mandatory sentencing laws in the Utah case that could affect sentencing in federal cases.

The “friend of the court” brief, filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals in Denver, was signed by former attorneys general Janet Reno, Benjamin Civiletti, Griffin Bell and Nicholas Katzenbach, former FBI Director William S. Sessions and other former prosecutors and judges, including 150 ex-Justice Department officials.

The brief comes a day after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said too many criminals are getting light sentences. Four of his predecessors, however told the federal court Wednesday that mandatory sentencing laws can result in unconstitutionally long prison terms. The stand taken by these justice heavyweights was applauded by groups who have fought to change mandatory sentencing.

"The fact that we have so many prosecutors signing on to this, whose job is to put people away for a long time carries a great deal of weight,” said Jason Zeidenberg, executive director for the Justice Policy Institution, Based in Washington, D.C. It promotes alternatives to incarceration. Zeidenberg said there is a growing consensus among prosecutors that mandatory sentencing passed by Congress have resulted in punishment too extreme for the crime.

At the heart of the controversy is a 55-year sentence given to a Salt lake City man for carrying a pistol—but never brandishing it—during a string of small marijuana deals.

Weldon Angelos was convicted in December 2003 of three counts of processing a firearm while involved in a drug deal and 13 other drug and money-laundering charges.

Angelos, 25, owner of the rap-music label Extravagant Records, had no prior convictions.

Utah federal Judge Paul Cassell said federal law left him no choice but to hand down the 55-year term for the firearms counts—a sentence he said was “unjust cruel and irrational.” He said the term was longer than federal sentences for kidnapping, rape, aircraft hijacking and even second-degree murder. In a brief written by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Rimm, the former Justice Department Officials said Congress had the right to enact harsh mandatory minimum sentences, but the current
law dictated a sentence for Angelos that was “grossly disproportionate” to the crime and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

"[The sentence] is contrary to the evolving standards of decency which are the hallmark of our civilized society,” he wrote.

"The main thing is that it is a case in which the result is so startling that everybody just agreed that it should not be something that should be tolerated in a humane society,” said John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and district judge who signed the brief.

Angelos appealed in May. His attorney, Jerome Mooney, had said the case is the perfect example of the problem with minimum mandatory sentences, which have proliferated in state and federal law over the past two decades.

Taken separately, each firearm charge carried a sentence of five years but federal law requires a back-to-back sentence of 25 years for each conviction after the first. Mooney said such “count stacking” shouldn’t be allowed for a firsttime offender.

If Angelos had been convicted in Utah state count, he likely would have been sentenced to seven years in prison, Cassell said. He recommended that the president commute Angelos’ sentence to 18 years or less and that Congress allow count stacking only for defendants who have already served prison time.

Mooney said no matter how the appeals court rules, the case is likely to get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court has certainly shown some sensitivity over the last couple of years to look hard at the federal sentencing system and punishment generally,” Mooney said.

"They have not really delved back into the area of mandatory minimums and the effect and impact that those have and to what extent there should be checks and balances in the judicial system with regard to those.”

On Tuesday, Gonzales said that since the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that judges do not have to follow federal sentencing guidelines, judges exercising their newfound discretion have imposed an increasing number of sentences shorter than the guideline would have allowed.

In the past several years, the American Bar Association and Supreme Court justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Bryer have criticized mandatory minimum sentencing law as too inflexible.

Others have said they give prosecutors too much say in determining sentencing.“This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue, it’s an issue of fundamental justice,” said Carmen Hernandez, Vice President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “Here’s this young man, Mr. Angelos, the amount of marijuana he sold was minuscule, and he’s looking at 55 years. When you step back from that number, it's fundamentally unfair.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in Utah has not yet filed its arguments with the appeals court, and spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch declined comment.

In response to a similar friend of the court brief filed with the trial judge, prosecutor Rob Lunt said federal appeals courts have repeatedly ruled that sentencing laws are constitutional as long as Congress rationally relates them to a legitimate government interest such as controlling drug distribution and firearm violence.

Lunt also have said Angelos has been suspected of drug trafficking and money laundering for years and got what he deserved.

Reprinted from the Desert News
Information provided by FAMM