DEFENSE LAWYERS CHEER END TO FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to strike down mandatory
federal sentencing guidelines has some Connecticut criminal defense
lawyers cheering.

Among them is Jeremiah Donovan of Old Saybrook, who believes one of
his clients who may benefit from the ruling is Ben Andrews.

Andrews is the former state NAACP leader and Republican candidate for
secretary of the state who was convicted in the state treasury scandal
and was facing up to six years in prison under the guidelines. Donovan
said the guideline calculation was driven by the dollar figures
involved in the treasury case.

The defense lawyer added that Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns, who sits
in U.S. District Court in New Haven, now will be able to give full
consideration to the good Andrews has done in his life.

The judge will be able to fashion a sentence "that reflects the crime
and the man," Donovan said.

One of the principal criticisms of the guidelines always has been that
they gave excessive weight to quantifiable aspects of crime, such as
dollar losses or amounts of illegal drugs, at the expense of values
that were harder to measure.

Defense lawyers also chafed at the harshness of the sentences the
guidelines prescribed. "They were just too high," Donovan said.

But he also said the end of mandatory sentencing guidelines is likely
to make it harder for federal prosecutors to recruit the "cooperating
witnesses" they rely on so heavily to build their cases.

"Everyone thinks they have a good argument for leniency," Donovan
said. With mandatory sentencing guidelines, he added, a defense lawyer
could explain to a client that the hoped-for break wasn't allowed.

Hartford lawyer Richard R. Brown, who also does federal criminal
defense work, said the guidelines transferred much of the power over
sentencing from judges to prosecutors.

"We as defense lawyers want the power of sentencing restored to judges
and taken away from prosecutors," Brown said. "Prosecutors have enough
power."

The chief goal of the guidelines, which Congress created in the 1980s,
was to bring more uniformity in sentencing.

Brown said the guidelines "tried to take individuals and find a
formula to put them into groups."

But he said sentencing systems like that used in Connecticut's state
courts, in which judges have broad discretion in choosing a sentence,
have the weight of experience behind them.

"The state of Connecticut has operated fine for the last couple of
hundred years with judges imposing sentences they thought were fair,"
Brown said.

Donovan said, however, that the Supreme Court decision may not be the
last word. "Congress surely is going to get involved," he said.

Justice Stephen Breyer echoed that in the court's ruling, writing:
"Ours, of course, is not the last word. The ball now lies in Congress'
court."

And the justices themselves contested the new requirements under the
two-part ruling, which calls for judges to consult guidelines in
determining sentences, but only on an advisory basis. Appeals courts
must ensure the sentences are reasonable.

Justice Antonin Scalia predicted the changes would "wreak havoc on
federal district and appellate courts."

Justice John Paul Stevens said they "erased the heart" of guidelines
intended to ensure sentences don't vary widely from one courtroom to
another.