US v. Shonubi

895 F. Supp. 460

UNITED STATES of America, v. Charles O. SHONUBI, Defendant.

No. CR 92-0007.

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

August 4, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY (Karen A. Popp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, of counsel), for U.S.

David G. Secular, New York City, for defendant.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                                                     CONTENTS
   I. Introduction ................................................................ 464
  II. Facts ....................................................................... 465
 III. Procedural History .......................................................... 466

      A. Aborted plea bargain ..................................................... 466
      B. Trial .................................................................... 466
      C. Sentencing ............................................................... 466
      D. Appeal ................................................................... 467
      E. Proceedings on remand utilizing Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of
         Evidence ................................................................. 468
      F. Summary of arguments on remand ........................................... 468
      G. Statement of the issue before the court .................................. 469
  IV. Sentencing Law .............................................................. 470
      A. Burden of proof .......................................................... 470
         1. Generally ............................................................. 470
         2. Burden of proof at sentencing ......................................... 471
      B. Operation of the Guidelines .............................................. 472
         1. Drug cases ............................................................ 473
         2. Non-drug cases ........................................................ 474
      C. Caselaw on estimation and specific evidence .............................. 475
         1. Estimation ............................................................ 475
         2. Estimates based on extrapolation ...................................... 477
         3. Specific evidence ..................................................... 478
   V. Available Sources of Information ............................................ 479
      A. Background knowledge ..................................................... 479
      B. Knowledge of the drug trade .............................................. 480
      C. Demeanor ................................................................. 480
         1. How judges use demeanor ............................................... 481
         2. Demeanor and appellate review ......................................... 481
      D. Assumptions about criminal behavior ...................................... 481
  VI. How Decision-Makers Learn and Decide ........................................ 482
      A. Inferences based on prior information and training ....................... 482
      B. Methods of reaching conclusions .......................................... 483
         1. Classical step-by-step analysis ....................................... 483
         2. Bayesian and statistical analysis ..................................... 484
         3. Biases ................................................................ 486
         4. Storytelling .......................................................... 487
 VII. Application of Law to Facts on Original Sentence ............................ 488
      A. Evidence from trial ...................................................... 488
      B. Demeanor and character ................................................... 489
      C. Knowledge of the drug trade: the trip effect ............................. 490
      D. Storytelling analysis .................................................... 491
VIII. Desirability of Further Analysis ............................................ 492
  IX. The General Federal Rule Favoring Admissibility Of and Reliance on All
      Helpful Evidence ............................................................ 492
      A. Mechanistic rules versus flexible general principles ..................... 493
      B. Development of twentieth century conceptions of evidence codes ........... 494
      C. Model Code of Evidence ................................................... 496
      D. Federal Rules of Evidence ................................................ 497
      E. Recent developments ...................................................... 499
   X. Additional Material Available to Sentencing Judge On Remand ................. 499
      A. Experts' reports ......................................................... 499
         1. Government expert ..................................................... 499
         2. Defense expert ........................................................ 504
         3. Rule 706 Panel ........................................................ 505
            a. Use of fictions .................................................... 505
            b. Problems with government's assumptions ............................. 506
            c. Comments on defendant's report ..................................... 506

            d. Non-statistical analysis ........................................... 506
            e. Statistical analysis ............................................... 507
            f. Simulations accounting for trip effect ............................. 508
            g. Conclusion ......................................................... 510
      B. Survey of the Eastern District bench ..................................... 511
      C. Testimony on economics of heroin smuggling ............................... 511
  XI. Law Applicable to Statistical and Other Information Supplied After Remand ... 513
      A. Admissibility of probabilistic evidence .................................. 513
      B. Use of bare statistics ................................................... 516
         1. Generally ............................................................. 516
         2. Criminal cases ........................................................ 518
 XII. Application of Law to Facts After Remand .................................... 518
      A. Conclusions about experts' reports ....................................... 519
      B. Random versus non-random sampling ........................................ 520
      C. Use of statistics to illustrate non-statistical decision-making .......... 521
      D. Conclusions on proper role of statistics in this case .................... 523
      E. Cross-checking ........................................................... 523
      F. Conclusion in light of statistics and other information provided on
           remand ................................................................. 524
XIII. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement .......................................... 524
      A. Purposes of sentencing and of § 3C1.1 ............................... 524
      B. Double-counting .......................................................... 525
      C. Discretion to enhance under Dunnigan ..................................... 526
      D. Unconstitutionality of automatic enhancement ............................. 527
      E. Particularized finding of perjury ........................................ 527
      F. Conclusion ............................................................... 528
 XIV. Additional Sentencing Considerations ........................................ 528
      A. "Penalty" for going to trial ............................................. 528
      B. Sentencing within prescribed Guidelines range ............................ 529
      C. Added time in prison required by Guidelines system ....................... 530
  XV. Conclusion .................................................................. 530

I. Introduction

The defendant was caught entering the country with 427.4 grams of heroin in his digestive tract. It is believed that he made seven prior drug smuggling trips, but not how much he carried on those trips. The court is required, under the Sentencing Guidelines, to estimate the total quantity of heroin imported.

At the original sentence, the court multiplied 427.4 by eight, arriving at a total of 3419.2 grams. The sentence was 151 months in prison, the low end of the Guidelines range for importation of 3,000 grams of heroin or more. See United States v. Shonubi, 802 F.Supp. 859 (E.D.N.Y.1992) Shonubi I, conviction affirmed, sentence reversed, 998 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.1993) Shonubi II.

The court of appeals rejected this solution and remanded. On reconsideration, the trial court now concludes that the defendant should be sentenced for importing between 1,000 and 3,000 grams of heroin. For reasons indicated in Parts XIII, XIV, and XV, infra, the term of imprisonment is unchanged.

This memorandum is largely devoted to explaining how a sentencing judge — and a trier of fact generally — reaches a decision. The case presents an opportunity to observe, explain, and discuss forensic decision-making. The absence of exclusionary rules of evidence at sentencing, the availability of statistics against which to "check" non-statistical proof, and the assistance of skilled experts have permitted the court to examine the decision-making process more fully than circumstances usually permit.

It should come as no surprise that in addition to rational analysis, the forensic factfinder depends upon assumptions and methods of thinking that may introduce biases and errors. Articulating the assumptions used in this case may provide valuable...