Law Commons^™

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Some Valedictory Reflections Twenty Years After Apprendi, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article reflects on the author's professional experience and intellectual evolution in relation to federal sentencing policy and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

The account begins with the author's first encounters with the Guidelines when he was a zealous Assistant U.S. Attorney, continues through his transition to teacher, scholar, policy advocate, and occasional sentencing consultant, and concludes with the author pessimistic about the prospects of meaningful federal sentencing reform.

The utility, if any, of these musings will lie partly in the fact that the author has been deeply involved …

First Principles And Practical Politics: Thoughts On Judge Pryor's Proposal To Revive Presumptive Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

In recent remarks to the American Law Institute, Judge William Pryor recommended abandonment of the post- Booker advisory version of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and adoption of a simplified presumptive federal guidelines system. There was a time when I shared Judge Pryor's optimism that a sensible system of simplified presumptive sentencing guidelines could be enacted and could achieve its beneficent ends for a useful period thereafter. I have not yet surrendered the dream, but I confess to increased skepticism. The remainder of this essay will explain my pessimistic turn.

Dead Law Walking: The Surprising Tenacity Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article takes a statistical look at the state of federal sentencing roughly a decade after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Federal Sentencing Guidelines constitutionally dead, and in its next breath resurrected them in advisory form. The Booker transformation has engendered endless procedural wrangles and has unquestionably altered thousands of individual sentencing outcomes. Yet, from the points of view of federal defendants in the mass and of the system that processes them from arrest to prison gate, perhaps the most surprising fact about Booker is how small an effect …

Nothing Is Not Enough: Fix The Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing considering whether the advisory guidelines system created by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker should be modified or replaced. I argue that it should.

Apples And Oranges: Securities Market Losses Should Be Treated Differently For Major White-Collar Criminal Sentencing Under The Federal Guidelines, John D. Esterhay

Missouri Law Review

Part II analyzes the history of market loss, a calculation of loss that arose as a damage calculation in private plaintiff civil securities fraud actions. This Part describes the evolving theory of loss causation in order to understand the foundation for market loss at criminal sentencing. This Part also explains how market loss might have been used in sentencing before the Guidelines. After the codification of the Guidelines, victim loss became the official driving factor in fraud sentencing. Thus, Part III examines the loss table and how a large loss finding leads to a long prison term recommendation. Because the …

Swimming Against The Tide: The Eighth Circuit Holds That Fleeing A Police Officer In A Motor Vehicle Is Not A Crime Of Violence, Nichole Walsch

Missouri Law Review

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the Minnesota offense of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle is not a "crime of violence" for the purposes of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Sentencing Guidelines), a crime of violence is defined as any state or federal offense "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" that involves the use of physical force against another person or that "is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential …

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: A Simplified Sentencing Grid, Model Sentencing Guidelines §1.1, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the first of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled "'Tis a Gift to be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines", available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Determining The Sentencing Range And The Sentence Within Range, Model Sentencing Guidelines §1.2 - 1.8 , Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the second of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Sentencing Factors Applicable To All Offense Types, Model Sentencing Guidelines §3.1 - 3.6, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the ninth of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Mr. Madison Meets A Time Machine: The Political Science Of Federal Sentencing Reform, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This is the third in a series of articles analyzing the current turmoil in federal criminal sentencing and offering suggestions for improvements in the federal sentencing system. The first article, "The Failure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Structural Analysis," 105 COLUMBIA L. REV. 1315 (2005), analyzed the structural failures of the complex federal sentencing guidelines system, particularly those arising from imbalances among the primary institutional sentencing actors - Congress, the judiciary, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The second, "Beyond BandAids: A Proposal for Reconfiguring Federal Sentencing After Booker," 2005 U. OF CHICAGO LEGAL FORUM 149 (2005), …

Murder, Meth, Mammon & Moral Values: The Political Landscape Of American Sentencing Reform (In Symposium On White Collar Crime), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the ongoing American experiment in mass incarceration and considers the prospects for meaningful sentencing reform.

The Failure Of The Federal Sentencing System: A Structural Analysis, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

For most of the last decade, I numbered myself among the supporters of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and wrote extensively in their defense, while chronicling their defects. In the past year, I have reluctantly concluded that the federal sentencing guidelines system has failed. This Article explains the Guidelines' failure. The Sentencing Reform Act was intended to distribute the power to make sentencing policy and rules and to control individual sentencing outcomes among a range of national and local actors - the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, the federal appellate courts, and the Department of Justice at the national level, and district …

Drifting Down The Dnieper With Prince Potemkin: Some Skeptical Reflections About The Place Of Compliance Programs In Federal Criminal Sentencing (Symposium), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article explains how the federal organizational sentencing guidelines work and how they have created incentives for businesses to set up compliance programs. It then considers the paucity of evidence that compliance programs actually prevent the occurrence of corporate crime. It also questions whether investments in compliance programs make sense even for companies caught in a federal criminal investigation. There is little evidence that compliance programs have any significant effect on the likelihood that federal prosecutors will file criminal charges in the first instance. Even more surprisingly, examination of U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics reveals that the compliance program movement seems …

Memorandum Presenting The Case For Rapid Congressional Action In Response To Blakely V. Washington, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

Soon after the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, which invalidated the Washington state sentencing guidelines and cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on "Blakely v. Washington and the Future of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines." Witnesses from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the judiciary downplayed the seriousness of the situation and urged caution in any congressional action. Concerned that the situation in the courts was more dire than the institutional witnesses had been willing to admit, Professor Frank Bowman subsequently …

Memorandum Presenting A Proposal For Bringing The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Into Conformity With Blakely V. Washington, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

On June 24, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington, a case that invalidated the Washington state sentencing guidelines and cast the validity of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines into grave doubt. On June 27, 2004, Professor Frank Bowman sent a memorandum to the United States Sentencing Commission analyzing the probable impact of Blakely on the federal guidelines and proposing a legislative modification of the Guidelines to render them compliant with Blakely. The proposal relies on the rule of McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986), and Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), that post-conviction judicial findings …

Train Wreck? Or Can The Federal Sentencing System Be Saved? A Plea For Rapid Reversal Of Blakely V. Washington, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

In Blakely v. Washington, the Court found the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional, placed the validity of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the gravest doubt, and cast a shadow of deep uncertainty over many state sentencing systems and the entire twenty-five-year sentencing reform movement. Over the next year, legal publications will be deluged with sober analyses, exegeses, dissections, and deconstructions of the doctrinal origins and long-term effects of Blakely. If the big train wreck really happens, I expect I'll write a few myself. However, it is early for that sort of thing since so much about Blakely remains unclear. Indeed, …

A Challenge To The Rationale For General Economic Crime Sentence Increases Following Sarbanes-Oxley, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

I am writing in response to the Commission's request for comment published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2003. I will address the question of whether the base offense level and/or the loss table of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 should be further modified to provide across-the-board sentence increases for economic crime offenders at virtually all loss levels. In my view, no case for doing so has yet been made.

The 2001 Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Reforms: An Analysis And Legislative History, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article has four parts. First, it describes the general structure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the approach to sentencing economic crimes in effect between 1987 and 2001. Second, it outlines the defects in the former economic crime guidelines that led to the call for reform. Third, it describes the process undertaken by the Sentencing Commission that led to the passage of the 2001 economic crime amendments and, in so doing, provides a roadmap to sources of legislative history. Fourth, it explains and analyzes the new guidelines in light of their legislative history, with primary emphasis on the consolidated …

Editor's Observations: The 2001 Economic Crime Package: A Legislative History, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

On April 6, 2001, the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved a group of amendments to guidelines governing the sentencing of economic crimes. These measures, collectively known to as the “economic crime package,” are the culmination of some six years of deliberations by both the Conaboy and Murphy Sentencing Commissions working together with interested outside groups such as the defense bar, the Justice Department, probation officers, and the Criminal Law Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, The package contains three basic components. First, the now-separate theft and fraud guidelines, Sections 2B1.1 and 2F1.1, will be consolidated into a single guideline. Second, the …

Sentencing Guidelines: Where We Are And How We Got Here (Panel Remarks), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were created with two broad goals in mind. One, of course, was to reduce unjustified sentencing disparity, and that was accomplished in two ways. The first was to reduce the scope of front-end judicial discretion through the creation of guidelines. The second, which I think Tom Hutchison touched on,1 was to eliminate altogether the discretion of penological experts in the parole commission at the back end of the punishment process.

Fear Of Law: Thoughts On Fear Of Judging And The State Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Sentencing Symposium), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

To understand Fear of Judging and the debate over the Federal Sentencing Guidelines requires some familiarity with the sentencing reform movement that led to the adoption of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in 1987, as well as at least a rudimentary grasp of the structure of the Guidelines themselves. For those readers who require an introduction to both subjects, the next section of this Article attempts to provide one. Those already familiar with the Guidelines and their history can skip to Section III, where the discussion of Fear of Judging begins in earnest.