Judge Frederic Block is 90, and he has had decades to consider what counts as his gravest responsibility.
“Look,” he said over the phone the other day, “the most important part of the job of a district court judge is sentencing.”
Judge Block, of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, said the task required the right temperament.
“You want people who are levelheaded, who have a good sense of balance, of proportionality, a little sensitivity, a little humanity,” he said. “There’s no magic to it, and I’ve been doing it for 30 years. I think I got it down right.”
Still, sometimes a sentence that made sense when it was imposed can look like a bad fit over time. Prisoners grow old or get sick. The laws under which they were sentenced change. Others who committed the same crimes get starkly different prison terms. Doubts arise about guilt. On occasion, everyone agrees that the prisoner has been thoroughly rehabilitated.
In a timely book to be published next week, Judge Block makes a vigorous case for giving judges wide discretion to revisit sentencing decisions, describing cases he has encountered and urging states to adopt a more lenient approach.
The book, “A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It,” arrives as federal courts are deeply divided on the question, one prompted by an extraordinary 2018 law, the First Step Act. The law, enacted by enormous bipartisan margins and with President Donald J. Trump’s backing, overhauled federal sentencing.
A major feature of the law lets prisoners file motions for compassionate release in “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances.
“The First Step Act just really changed the sentencing landscape in the United States, because we are getting these motions every week,” said Judge Block, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
“As I speak right now, I probably have two new ones today,” he said. “Understandably, the district court bench will be inundated with them. Because if you’re in jail and you have the opportunity to make an application asking the district court judge to reduce your sentence, you want to do it.”
But what counts as “extraordinary and compelling” is deeply contested.
Consider the case of Joel Francois Jean, who pleaded guilty to drug and guns charges in 2009. Under a law requiring harsh sentences for career offenders, he was sentenced to 24 years in prison. In 2022, he filed a motion for compassionate release.
Judge Michael J. Truncale of the Federal District Court in Beaumont, Texas, granted the motion, writing that he was persuaded by the prison officials who vouched for Mr. Jean and was moved by the prisoner himself.
“Mr. Jean exuded a level of sincerity that his words on paper cannot possibly convey, and that the court has never before witnessed from a criminal defendant,” wrote Judge Truncale, who was appointed by Mr. Trump. “The term ‘rare’ does not give Mr. Jean’s rehabilitation and renewed outlook on life justice — it is wholly extraordinary.”
But federal law does not allow compassionate release based on rehabilitation alone. Judge Truncale identified a second factor: The law had changed in the meantime, and were Mr. Jean sentenced today, he would no longer be considered a career offender, meaning his sentence would be 13 to 15 years.
The judge resentenced Mr. Jean to time served, ordering his release in August 2023. He had served just shy of 15 years.
The Justice Department appealed, saying that a change in the law that is not retroactive cannot count as “extraordinary and compelling.” A few months later, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended its guidelines. Such changes, it said, may indeed be considered, at least when the prisoner has served 10 years and the sentencing disparity is significant.
That development did not sway the Justice Department, which said the commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch, had overstepped its authority.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Judge Truncale’s ruling in July and allowed Mr. Jean to remain free. Writing for the majority, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by President Biden, expressed surprise at the Justice Department’s unyielding stance.
“The D.O.J. is apparently fearful,” Judge Douglas wrote, “that there are so many people incarcerated based on now-unconstitutional or otherwise illegal laws; who have been incarcerated for 10 years or more; whose sentence would be drastically different today; and whose individualized circumstances support compassionate release” that the discretion the commission would give judges “will become a quasi-parole system. That is either a convenient exaggeration or a disturbing reality.”
In dissent, Judge Jerry E. Smith, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, pointed to that passage as evidence of the majority’s “ideological fervor,” adding that “the kindest thing I can say about the majority’s zealous opinion is that it is a horrifying violation of this court’s well-respected rule of orderliness,” which requires later panels to follow rulings from earlier ones.
Judge Smith noted that federal appeals courts were deeply divided over the role that changes in the law ought to play in the compassionate-release calculus. That split increases the chances that the Supreme Court may intervene.
In Mr. Jean’s case, the government has twice asked for extra time to decide whether to seek a rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit, saying that Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Justice Department’s top appellate lawyer, needed more time to consider the matter. That is another sign that the case, or one like it, is heading to the justices.
Judge Block made the same assessment.
“The sentencing judge’s discretion to grant compassionate release motions is up in the air,” he said. “I suspect that the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in.”
The post Long Prison Terms Deserve a Second Look and ‘a Little Humanity,’ Judge Argues appeared first on New York Times.
