U.S. v. K

160 F.Supp.2d 421

UNITED STATES of America, v. K, Defendant.

No. 00-CR-951 (JBW).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

May 31, 2001.

Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, By Noah B. Perlman, Esq., for the United States of America.

Arthur L. Aidala, Brooklyn, NY, By Arthur L. Aidala, Esq., for the Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

I. Introduction: ............................................................................423
II. Facts: ..................................................................................423
    A.  K's Background ......................................................................423
    B.  Offense .............................................................................424
    C.  Procedural History ..................................................................424
        1.  Arraignment .....................................................................424
        2.  Post-release activity ...........................................................424
        3.  Sentencing hearing on rehabilitation ............................................425
        4.  Post-sentencing-hearing activity ................................................425
    D.  Special Options Rehabilitation Service (S.O.R.S.) Program Before Imposition
          of Sentence .......................................................................426
        1.  Purpose .........................................................................426
        2.  Selection process ...............................................................426
        3.  Methodology .....................................................................426
        4.  Selection of K ..................................................................427
III. Law: Can the Court Defer K's Sentencing to Consider Likelihood of Rehabilitation? ......427
     A.  Rehabilitation Defined .............................................................427
     B.  History of Rehabilitation As a Goal of Sentencing ..................................428
     C.  Sentencing Reform Act Promotes Solving Prison Overcrowding through
           Rehabilitative Alternatives to Incarceration .....................................430
         1.  Solving prison overcrowding ....................................................431
         2.  Rehabilitative alternatives to incarceration ...................................432
     D.  Prisons Still Tend to Be Overcrowded and Criminogenic ..............................434
     E.  The Eastern District's Program Stressing Rehabilitation Before Sentence
           is Appropriate under the Guidelines ..............................................436
         1.  Existing sentencing options under the Guidelines ...............................437
             a.  Pre-Trial diversion by federal prosecutors .................................438
             b.  Sentencing alternatives to incarceration by judges .........................439
         2.  S.O.R.S. program................................................................439
     F.  Departing Downwardly from the Guidelines ...........................................440
         1.  Discretion of the sentencing court .............................................440
         2.  Grounds ........................................................................441
             a. Probabilities of rehabilitation .............................................441
             b. Physical and emotional vulnerability ........................................443
             c. Family circumstances ........................................................444

IV.  Application of Law to Facts: ...........................................................444
     A.  Postponing Sentencing to Permit K to Complete S.O.R.S. Program Comports
           with the Primary Objectives of Modern Sentencing Reform ..........................444
     B.  Possible Grounds for Ultimately Departing in K's Case ..............................445
         1. Probabilities of rehabilitation .................................................445
         2. Physical and emotional vulnerability ............................................446
         3. Family circumstances ............................................................446
V.  Conclusion:..............................................................................447

I. Introduction:

The question posed is whether the court may defer sentence of a defendant to permit him to complete the Special Options Rehabilitation Service (S.O.R.S.) Program, an innovative remediation procedure administered by this district's Pretrial Services officers. The answer is yes. While protecting the public, the federal district judge's duty is to try to save as many of the people before the court as it can—one person at a time in accordance with the law.

Defendant's continued participation in the S.O.R.S. program will enable the court to evaluate rehabilitation of defendant before sentencing him. Sentencing can be deferred to allow this young, nonviolent offender—whose physical and mental fragility renders him particularly susceptible to abuse in prison—further time to demonstrate rehabilitation under the strict control of Pretrial Services.

This approach permits appropriate and necessary circumvention on a case-by-case basis of rigid Guidelines that in some cases have unnecessarily destroyed the lives of defendants—particularly minorities—and their families, and added substantially to taxpayers' burdens by requiring the construction of a large and rapidly expanding prison system. As demonstrated below, unnecessary cruelty by requiring incarceration in cases such as this one is not required by federal law.

Once it imposes sentence, the court under the Guidelines lacks the power to modify the sentence to meet changing circumstances and demonstrated rehabilitation unless upon the request of the prosecutor. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), (c) (reduction of sentence); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.19 (2000) (post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts after sentence of a term of imprisonment are not permitted). Deferring sentencing in selective cases allows the court to follow the statutory requirement that rehabilitation be considered as one of the viable and continuing sentencing criteria. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Saving rather than destroying defendants is permitted under the Guidelines.

II Facts:

A. K's Background

K is a twenty-one year old Asian-American male. He is slight in build and reticent. Born in mainland China, he is the elder of his parents' two children. The family emigrated to the United States when defendant was four years old. He is a United States citizen. His sister is attending college.

Defendant's parents speak little English. They have worked long hours at low-paying jobs to meet the family's financial needs. K's father is employed as a cook in a Bronx restaurant. Until recently his mother was a seamstress in a garment factory. Defendant's grandfather, unable to speak or read English, babysat for the two children when they were younger.

A severe learning disability hampered defendant in school. He began experimenting with drugs at a young age. Unbeknownst to K's parents, defendant dropped out of high school in the ninth grade. When defendant left school, his polysubstance abuse escalated, including Ecstasy, cocaine, Quaaludes, LSD, Valium, marijuana and alcohol.

Psychiatric evaluations reveal that defendant functions in the low-average range of intelligence, with poor insight and judgment. Until recently he was unemployed and dependent on his parents for financial support.

Since K's arrest, his mother has become terminally ill. She lost her job at the garment factory and is without medical insurance. As required by his Pretrial Services officer supervising defendant while he is on bail, K is now working fulltime at a Brooklyn auto electronics shop. His co-workers describe him as hard-working, friendly, and unfailingly polite. He contributes all but $20 of his weekly salary to his mother's health care costs. K now plans to prepare for a vocation helping poor people in the health field.

B. Offense

In April 2000, at a time when defendant was unemployed and drug-dependent, he was contacted by two government informants masquerading as prospective buyers. Defendant met with the informants at his parents' residence in Brooklyn where he agreed to supply them with 15,000 tablets of methylenedioxyamphetamine, a drug commonly known as Ecstasy, by July 4, 2000. K could supply only 1,000 tablets. Despite continuing negotiations, ultimately, he was unable to procure any additional tablets. K was arrested in August 2000.

C. Procedural History

1. Arraignment

Defendant pled guilty in December 2000 to one count of knowingly and intentionally attempting to distribute, and possessing with the intent to distribute, Ecstasy in violation of sections 841(b)(7)(c) and 846 of Title 21 of the United States Code. Significantly, the government agreed to base the plea on the 1,000 tablets of Ecstasy the defendant actually sold rather than on the 15,000 tablets he allegedly conspired to sell, thereby reducing estimated incarceration under the Guidelines from 46-57 months to an estimated 12-18 months. He was released on bail.

2. Post-release activity

Following his release from jail, defendant was cooperative, compliant and eager to please. He met with his Pretrial Services officer several times a week. K's Pretrial Services officer referred him to the Fortune Society, where he attended remedial classes twice weekly in preparation for the General Equivalency Diploma examination. He received passing scores on two G.E.D. pretests. He also provided clerical services as a volunteer at both the Fortune Society and the Manhattan office of the...