A Model Penal Code for the 21st Century

Charging decisions, which we wrote about last week, matter for many reasons. They drive plea bargains, and they affect sentencing. You file a felony, for example, so that the guy will plead to a misdemeanor without giving you much trouble. It happens all the time.

Bad charging decisions, though, don’t just cause wrongful convictions or unjust sentences.

They cause other consequences that continue to torment you after you’ve served your sentence. Your actual sentence may include your jail or prison time, the fines you must pay, or the terms of probation you must follow. You did the crime so you should do the time and pay the fine, right? Okay, but then even after you do, you still may not be able to cast a vote, land a job, rent a home, hold a license, or get a loan. These are the so-called collateral consequences of a conviction.

But the future may be brighter.

Last week, the American Law Institute approved major changes to the Model Penal Code to address these consequences. The ALI is the leading scholarly body that aims to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve American law. The Model Penal Code is its seminal work in the area of criminal law. It doesn’t have the force of law by itself, but it’s influential. Most states have used it in passing their own laws, and courts cite to it often.

The new provisions would require you to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a collateral consequence of your conviction imposes a heavy burden on your ability to rejoin society and that public safety doesn’t need you to suffer it.

If you do that then a court could relieve you from that burden. A court could even issue a certificate of rehabilitation that shields employers, landlords, or others who give you a second chance from civil liability.

Already, state legislatures have been proposing and passing laws to give people a fair shake to prove themselves before dismissing them based on the past.

Hopefully, that momentum keeps building. We should consider what it means to have a record, anyway, when most people either have one, know someone close to them who does, or would have one but for the grace of God. And we should consider how we judge people altogether in a world in which our every action can leave a permanent trace.

The twenty-first century may demand it.

The New DOJ Policy on Charging Decisions

Two weeks ago, the new U.S. Attorney General announced a new policy for charging and sentencing in criminal cases. Although the policy targets drug cases in particular, it applies to all federal prosecutions.

You can break it down into three parts.

First, prosecutors should file the “most serious, readily-provable” charges in each case. The most serious charges are those that carry the stiffest sentence, including any mandatory-minimum sentence. To deviate from this policy, prosecutors must get approval from a supervisor, document their reasons for it, and be able to point to “unusual facts.”

Second, in most cases, prosecutors should seek a standard sentence under federal sentencing guidelines. If they want to deviate from the guideline sentence, they must get supervisory approval and document their reasons in the file.

Third, prosecutors should discard inconsistent policies of the prior administration. Under prior policy, prosecutors still charged the most serious offense that was consistent with a defendant’s conduct and likely to yield a solid conviction. But they were also encouraged to evaluate cases individually to decide which charges to file, and they were told to seek sentences that were fair and proportional under all the circumstances.

In particular, prosecutors now must ignore two prior policies that tried to reduce harsh sentences in low-level, nonviolent drug cases. Under one policy, they were not to charge a specific drug quantity if it triggered a mandatory-minimum sentence, and they were to avoid charging prior drug convictions that doubled the minimum sentence or put someone in prison for life. We wrote about this before here. Under the other policy, they could not threaten to charge such priors just to force you to plead guilty. I guess that’s fair game now.

The new policy has sparked criticism across the spectrum. Lawmakers from both parties have railed against it. One former U.S. Attorney decried its “stunning lack of faith” in line prosecutors. A coalition of state and local prosecutors has published an open letter against it. And the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had this reaction:

“This Attorney General has taken away the discretion of professional prosecutors to determine what sentence serves justice in any given case. Instead, prosecutors are now required in every case mindlessly to seek the maximum possible penalty…. This policy will lock up non-violent offenders with little or no criminal history, waste untold millions of dollars, devastate families and whole communities, and yet not make us any safer.”

New California Criminal Laws in 2017

Let’s get right to it.

We already covered three of them in prior posts. One was Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana. Another was Proposition 57, which expanded parole eligibility for nonviolent felons and cut back on prosecuting kids as adults. A third was Assembly Bill 1909, which made it a felony for prosecutors to commit Brady violations in bad faith.

Here are five more.

Ransomware is a form of extortion. This is Senate Bill 1137. It amended the Penal Code to punish anyone who introduces ransomware into a computer system or network. It doesn’t matter whether you actually got the ransom or not; it’s a felony punishable by two, three, or four years in the county jail. See Pen. Code § 523.

New business search warrants, less drama. This is Senate Bill 1087. It amended the Evidence Code to make it easier for innocent businesses to comply with search warrants for their records. Now, if a business is not a subject of the underlying investigation, it may be able to produce its records by mail or in some other arms-length way. That’s a lot better than having agents show up to go through your stuff. See Evid. Code § 1560(f).

New motion to vacate a conviction or sentence based on immigration consequences or fresh evidence of innocence. This is Assembly Bill 813. It allows you to ask a court to throw out your case in two situations even though you’ve served out your sentence. The first is if you pleaded guilty because of a legal mistake that undermined your ability to understand the immigration consequences of your plea. The second is if you can present fresh evidence that you were innocent. See Pen. Code § 1473.7.

No more possibility of probation for sex offenses where the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. This is Assembly Bill 2888. It eliminated probation as a possible sentence for rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a foreign object if the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. It extended a rule that already applied to other, serious sex offenses. See Pen. Code § 1203.065.

No more statute of limitations for felony sex and child-molestation cases. This is Senate Bill 813. It eliminated the statute of limitations for a litany of sex crimes, which now may be prosecuted at any time. Previously, they had to be prosecuted within ten years, or if the alleged victim was under 18, before he or she turned 40. See Pen. Code § 799.

When It Rains, It Pours

Here’s another case that blurs the line between civil and criminal laws.

It started as a civil dispute between a homeowner and contractor. The homeowner hired the contractor to paint her house and install ten windows. Six months later, he had painted her house and installed eight-and-a-half windows, but no one was happy. He wanted $8,000 more to finish the work, but she’d already paid him $61,000 and refused to pay more.

The contractor sued for the $8,000 balance, but he had a problem: apparently, he didn’t actually have a contractor’s license. Or he couldn’t produce a valid one, anyway.

He may not have realized that, in California, an unlicensed contractor can’t sue for a breach of contract no matter how good a job he may have done. Not only that but he can be sued for every penny that he was paid even if he did great work. Which is what happened here. The homeowner lawyered up and countersued for the $61,000 that she had paid him.

Then his luck got worse.

Because he couldn’t produce a contractor’s license, he was charged criminally with six misdemeanor counts of contracting without a license. Yes, it’s a crime, too. He pleaded no contest to one count, and the other six were dismissed. He was put on probation and ordered to pay restitution as part of it.

At the restitution hearing, the government demanded that he pay back the entire $61,000 that the homeowner had paid him plus her attorneys’ fees. He testified that he did the work right and that she owed him $8,000. She testified that he didn’t do it right because some of the paint had faded, chipped, bubbled, and peeled in the three years since. He argued that any damage was due to natural weathering because the house was so close to the ocean, and he called an expert who testified to that.

The trial court sided with the contractor, but on appeal, he was ordered to pay back everything, including her attorneys’ fees.

Why?  The law was clear that he didn’t have a right to the money no matter how well he performed, so legally, she never should’ve had to pay for his work in the first place.

Wasn’t this a criminal case, not a civil one? Yes, but the civil rule applied to criminal restitution.

Wasn’t this an unfair windfall for the homeowner? Perhaps.

But that’s the way the cookie crumbled.

An Unfunded Mandate from Above

In Gideon, the United States Supreme Court observed that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”

But fifty years later, we continue to fall short of the full promise of the Sixth Amendment, and the struggle is real.

National standards recommend that public defenders handle no more than 150 felony cases, 400 misdemeanor cases, or 200 juvenile cases per year. As a lawyer, I can tell you those are a lot of cases, but I don’t need to. We all know there are only 365 days in a year.

The reality is that very few defender’s offices have enough lawyers to meet those standards. By some measures, only 27 percent of county-based offices and 21 percent of state-based offices do. What’s worse, only seven percent of county-based offices have enough investigators to meet those standards, and many don’t employ a single full-time investigator.

The consequences are that more people sit in jail for longer after an arrest (which costs money); more people plead guilty to get out of jail, taking bad deals or copping to things they didn’t do; the system as a whole makes more mistakes, including wrongful convictions; and people receive harsher, excessive sentences.

Gideon may have been an unfunded mandate, but it’s as fundamental as the heavens, and it was mandated by the Sixth Amendment. Who would we be without it?

The SEC Wants You to Self-Report

At a conference in November, the SEC’s Director of Enforcement, Andrew Ceresney, announced that, from now on, you must self-report violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act if you want the Enforcement Division to recommend a non-prosecution or deferred-prosecution agreement. Even then, Mr. Ceresney warned, you may not get an NPA or DPA, but the Division won’t even consider it if you fail to self-report. To self-report, in other words, is now a necessary, threshold condition to negotiating an NPA or DPA.

On the heels of that announcement, last month, one company that had self-reported its FCPA violations was able to resolve civil and criminal charges on relatively favorable terms.

First, the company settled the civil SEC investigation that commenced after it reported that two of its subsidiaries were making improper payments to foreign officials to win business. The improper payments included non-business-related travel, gifts, and entertainment that totaled $1.5 million over five years. To settle the case, the company agreed to cease and desist from further violations and to surrender $14 million in profits.

Next, the company settled the parallel, criminal investigation by entering into an NPA with the Justice Department. The three-year NPA requires the company to pay $15 million in fines, improve its compliance program, and report on its progress to the government.

Finally, one of the company’s employees earned a three-year DPA of his own based on his substantial cooperation during the SEC investigation. It was the Commission’s first DPA with an individual in an FCPA case.

To be clear, self-reporting has long been a factor in the Commission’s framework for evaluating cooperation by people or businesses. Generally, the SEC will credit your cooperation based on how much you helped, how important the case was, how culpable you were personally, and how much of a threat you continue to pose.

But going forward, self-reporting appears to carry significantly more weight with the agency, at least in FCPA cases.

 

New California Criminal Laws: Part Deux

To conclude our two-part series on the state’s new criminal laws, here are three more important ones that went into effect on January 1, 2016.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys must account for the immigration consequences of a plea deal. This is Assembly Bill 1343. It amended the Penal Code to reflect that defense lawyers must advise noncitizens accurately about the immigration consequences of a proposed guilty plea, and they must ethically defend against such consequences to the extent they can. This is not new, but the statute confirms state and federal case law to that effect. What is new, however, is that prosecutors must also consider such immigration consequences as a factor in their plea-bargaining efforts to reach a just outcome. See Pen. Code §§ 1016.2 & 1016.3.

It’s not a felony to transport marijuana, phencyclidine, or mushrooms unless you’re doing it for sale. This is Assembly Bill 730. It amended the Health and Safety Code to bring the treatment of these drugs in line with that of cocaine, heroin, and others. Two years ago, the state amended its drug-trafficking laws to preclude felony charges for just transporting most drugs unless you were actually trafficking, too—that is, transporting for sale; but the bill left out marijuana, phencyclidine, and psilocybin mushrooms. This bill fixes that. See Health & Safety Code §§ 11360, 11379.5, & 11391.

The police (but not your neighbor) may continue to use pen registers and trap-and-trace devices to investigate you. This is Assembly Bill 929. It amended the Penal Code to provide for police to apply for pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. What are these? Well, pen registers capture and record all the numbers of the phones or devices that you call or send messages to (but not the content of your communications), while trap-and-trace devices capture and record all the numbers of the phones or devices that call or send messages to you (but not the content). They’re often used in tandem, and they’ve been authorized by case law for a long time, but no California statute codified their use until now.

To use them, the police must apply for a court order, certify that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, and show probable cause to believe the information will lead to evidence of the crime. If granted, the court order is good for sixty days, and it may be renewed for another sixty days. But if someone installs or uses such devices without a court order, it’s a crime. It may be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor, and it’s punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment in the county jail for up to three years, or both. See Pen. Code §§ 638.50, 638.51, 638.52, & 638.53.

A Penny For Your Thoughts, Judge

Thank God we live in a country whose leaders speak like this. What if they didn’t, or couldn’t?

In this case, maybe it’s because the speaker, Alex Kozinski, a prominent federal judge, was an immigrant born behind the Iron Curtain, the son of two Holocaust survivors who came here when he was twelve. Maybe we value the rule of law more viscerally when we’ve seen firsthand—when we know and understand—what government is capable of.

In any event, Judge Kozinski sat down recently for an interview on criminal law and justice, and it’s riveting. Courtesy of the Washington Post, the interview is split into five short video clips on the topics below. I’ve excerpted some of his comments here, but each clip is only one or two minutes long, and they’re worth watching and listening to.

On police militarization and surveillance. “I somehow got on a law-enforcement mailing list. I don’t know whether they send this to all judges, but I do get these catalogues that show all the equipment that they make available for the police. And my word, those things really look like they belong in the military…. It’s important to fight crime, it’s important to fight terrorism, and we certainly rely on police to do many things that, God knows, most of us would not want to do. So I think we should be very grateful to the police for being willing to put themselves out there in harm’s way on our behalf, but I think there is such a thing as too much. There is such a thing as being too zealous and entrenching on people’s freedoms. We do not want to live in a militarized society.”

On redemption and rehabilitation. “So … we have made it much easier to keep track of people and to have the past revealed, and in some cases that’s justifiable for the protection of society. But I think we have gone too far. I think there’s such a thing as privacy. There’s such a thing as forgiveness. There’s such a thing as giving people truly a clean break to remake their lives. And our system tends to pull them back, tends to pull them down. And basically says you’ll never get away, you will never have a normal life again. And I think that’s too bad. I don’t think that’s a society we want to live in. I think … we have traditionally believed in the concept that people can reform toward good. They’re not inevitably evil, and they’re not forever evil. And that concept seems to be dwindling, and I’m sorry to see it go.”

On guilty pleas and false confessions. “Well there are many reasons somebody may plead guilty, even though there may be doubts, or even though they may be innocent. One of the principal reasons is that, often, there are very serious charges laid on by the government and going to trial is so risky that taking a guilty plea on something that is much less seems the only rational choice. Because if you go to trial and lose, you’ll never see the light of day. There are also many cases where people are interrogated by the police for a very long time, and they wind up giving confessions—confessions that turn out not to be true…. DNA proves it, witnesses prove it, somebody else was out there. But the police managed to extract a confession. Well, once you confess to the police, any lawyer will tell you it’s very hard to persuade the jury that you are not guilty. So people may take a guilty plea in that kind of situation just because they think they have no hope of being acquitted, and the guilty plea at least gives them some measure of hope that they will someday see the light of day.”

On overcriminalization. “As the law gets more complex and as more things are criminalized and as more statutes are added, the line between what is criminal and what is not criminal becomes very blurry. Oftentimes you don’t know that something is criminal or you don’t imagine that something is criminal until you get charged with a crime…. Now I don’t think we ought to be charging things that are not clearly crimes. Criminal prosecutions ought not to be an invention. People ought to be charged for crimes for things that are clearly criminal. Not things that a prosecutor can imagine might be a crime.”

On punishment and mandatory-minimum sentences. “One of the things I suggest is that … the jury be consulted. And that right now, in most places in the United States, except in the case of capital cases, the juries have no idea when they convict as to what the likely or the possible sentence would be. I think that’s sort of a mistake. I think we ought to let juries know whether they are weighing the facts and deciding whether someone is going to go to prison two or three years or whether he is going to go to prison likely for the next twenty or thirty years. In life, we don’t make decisions in the abstract. We always know the consequences, we weigh the consequences of the decision. It seems to me the jury ought to be informed, the jury ought to have a say in what the sentence should be.”

One Way to the Gallows

To appreciate due process, consider the story of a simple man named George Spencer who was accused, of all things, of impregnating a pig in puritan New England. His story takes place in 1642, and it’s excerpted from the book, The Case of the Piglet’s Paternity: Trials from New Haven Colony, 1639-1663, by Jon C. Blue, a Superior Court judge in Connecticut.

One day, a local farmer complained to the colony’s magistrates that a female pig he’d just bought had birthed a deformed stillborn, and what’s more, the dead piglet looked like Spencer, a former servant of the man who sold him the sow. I’m sure that alone was tough to hear for Spencer, who may not have been a looker. He had one good eye and one deformed eye, and apparently, his bad eye in particular resembled that of the piglet.

The resemblance caused such consternation that, ten days later, the magistrates questioned Spencer about “this abomination.” Not surprisingly, Spencer denied being the father, but the magistrates committed him to prison based on “strong probabilities.”

That night, one of the magistrates went to the prison, found Spencer talking with two other men, and asked him “if he had not committed that abominable filthiness with the sow.” But Spencer again denied it. The magistrate then pointedly asked whether he didn’t notice a family resemblance—ouch—and recited to him Proverbs 28:13: “He that hides his sins shall not prosper, but he that confesses and forsakes them shall find mercy.”

The magistrate pressed, asking Spencer if he regretted denying “the fact which seemed to be witnessed from heaven against him.”

Spencer then relented, said was he was sorry, and confessed to the deed.

It sealed his fate.

The following day, the magistrates returned to the prison with a throng of others. They confronted Spencer and urged him to confess his sin. He initially denied it, but when he was reminded of his prior confession, he confessed again.

Then people really got riled up. The next day, the colony’s governor joined the magistrates to question Spencer personally. The authorities asked him “how long the temptation had been upon his spirit before he committed it.” Spencer replied that “it had been upon his spirit two or three days before.”

Within a week, Spencer was put on trial. He had no time to prepare his defense or the means to do it. He had no right to a lawyer, a jury, or a presumption of innocence. The court urged him again “to give glory to God” by confessing, but Spencer wouldn’t do it. Instead, he reportedly cursed himself and desperately denied all that he’d formerly confessed.

It was too late. The court called a series of witnesses who testified to his prior confessions. Spencer answered that “the witnesses did him wrong and charged things upon him which he had not spoken,” and he again denied committing the act.

But the die was cast. The court found him guilty of the “unnatural and abominable” crime and, by the rule of Leviticus 20:15, sentenced him and the sow to death.

After the verdict, the court demanded that Spencer acknowledge “his sinful and abominable filthiness,” but Spencer replied that “he would leave it to God, adding that he had condemned himself by his former confessions.” The court declared itself “abundantly satisfied” of his guilt, and it ordered his sentence carried out.

George Spencer was hanged on April 8, 1642. Paraded before a crowd that had gathered at the gallows, he was urged to acknowledge his crime, and he again denied it. As the noose was fitted to his neck, the poor man fully and desperately confessed again, but as the mob pressed him to speak further of his sin, he fell silent, until the sentence was carried out.

Here’s to a constant march of progress.

The Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations

They are the roadmap to a federal prosecutor’s discretion in charging your business with a crime. The why, when, and how. You can read them yourself on the Justice Department’s website. They apply to all business organizations: corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and even public entities, or anything in between.

Here are the highlights.

Generally, prosecutors should not treat businesses any more harshly or leniently than people, so they must consider the same things in their charging decisions as they do with individuals. These include the sufficiency of the evidence, the likelihood of success at trial, the probable deterrent effect of a conviction, and the adequacy of non-criminal remedies.

But the prosecution of businesses brings special considerations into play. The following nine illustrate those considerations but don’t exhaust them. Some may not apply to your case, and one factor may even override the others. But here they are.

  1. The nature and seriousness of the offense, including the risk of harm to the public and the Department’s priorities for particular categories of crimes. The Tax Division, for example, aims to prosecute people, rather than businesses, for corporate tax offenses. The Antitrust Division, to use another example, gives full cooperation credit only to the first cooperating business.
  2. The pervasiveness of misconduct within your business, including management’s complicity in it. The government will look at the number and kind of people with substantial authority who participated in, condoned, or stayed willfully blind to the misconduct. It may judge the pervasiveness of misconduct at your business as a whole or at one of its units.
  3. Your business’s history of similar misconduct in civil or criminal proceedings, which may include the history of any separate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Criminal prosecution is more likely if prosecutors believe your business has not responded adequately to prior warnings, charges, or sanctions.
  4. Your business’s timely, voluntary disclosure of facts from any internal investigation and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents, officers, directors, or employees, including senior executives. This was the crux of a policy memorandum issued earlier this month that emphasized the prosecution of the people through whom businesses act over just the entities themselves.
  5. The effectiveness of your business’s preexisting compliance program, if any, including how management enforces it.
  6. Your business’s remedial efforts to cooperate, pay restitution, discipline wrongdoers, or implement or improve a compliance program.
  7. The collateral consequences of prosecution, including any disproportionate harm to innocent investors, pensioners, employees, other third parties, or the public. Since every conviction of a person or business harms innocent third parties, the effect alone is not enough to ward off prosecution. But if the collateral consequences would be significant, the government may consider an alternative.
  8. The adequacy of any prosecutions of responsible individuals.
  9. The adequacy of alternative, civil or regulatory remedies.

Once prosecutors decide to charge your business, they will generally charge the most serious offense that’s likely to result in a sustainable conviction. Just like their cases against people, they will consider whether various possible charges fit the circumstances of your case, serve the ends of justice, and maximize the impact of federal resources. And just like their cases against people, they will then want a guilty plea to the most serious, readily-provable charge they filed. Their plea offer may impose substantial fines, restitution, compliance measures, court-appointed monitors, or regulatory exclusion, suspension, or debarment. And they will generally not accept your business’s guilty plea in return for cutting its officers or employees loose.

Ratings and Reviews

The National Trial Lawyers
Mani Dabiri American Bar Foundation Emblem