Mahoney

  • Our Team
    • Column Team
      • Team
      • Kevin J. Mahoney
      • Joan M. LeGraw
      • Georgia Pasqualone
      • Roisin
  • Practice Areas
    • Column One
      • Drug Offenses
      • Crimes of Violence
      • Sex Crimes
      • Motor Vehicle Offenses
      • Theft Crimes
      • Illegal Possession of Firearms
      • Obstructing Justice Offenses
      • White Collar Crimes
      • Federal Defense
      • Probation Violations
      • Restraining Orders
      • Professional Misconduct
      • Custody of Domestic Pets, Dogs & Cats Litigation
    • Column Two
      • Cyber Crimes
      • Hate Crimes
      • Appeals
      • Clerk Magistrate Hearings
      • Immigration
      • Civil Litigation
      • Civil Suits Against Law Enforcement
      • Personal Injury
      • College Crimes
      • Title IX Investigations
      • Juvenile Law
      • Estate Planning & Asset Protection
      • Last Will and Testament
      • Representation Before DCF
      • Dangerous or Nuisance Dog Defense
  • What Should I Do?
    • Cloumn One
      • Selecting a Winning Lawyer
      • Recommended Lawyers
      • Succeeding With Your Lawyer
      • Right to a Telephone Call
      • Miranda Rights
      • Should I Speak with Police?
      • Coping With Stress of Court
      • Bill of Rights
      • Mass Declaration of Rights
      • Street Encounters or Terry Stops
      • Cooperating With DEA or Police
    • Column Two
      • Common Defenses
      • Right to Self-Defense
      • Reasonable Doubt
      • What to Wear to Court
      • How to Behave in Court
      • Overview of the Justice System
      • Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer
      • Cambridge Drug Trafficking Lawyer: Knock and Talk
      • Motor Vehicle Searches
  • Forensics
    • Column One
      • Forensic Experts
      • Preserving the Crime Scene
      • Collecting Evidence
      • Trace Evidence
      • Fingerprint Evidence
      • Autopsy
      • Gunshot Wounds
      • Stab Wounds
      • Drowning
      • Child Homicide
      • Rape Kit
    • Column Two
      • DNA Evidence
      • Forensic Dentistry
      • Forensic Botany
      • Toxicology
  • Mahoney in the Media
    • In the News
    • TV Appearances
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact

Federal Sentencing Guidelines

federal-sentencing-1

Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

PRINT THIS PAGE

How the Federal Sentencing Guildelines Work

The process of sentencing a federal criminal defendant is a formal and complicated one. Essentially, it requires the judge to engage in a three-step analysis: (1) determine the Guideline sentencing range; (2) determine whether any standard Guideline departures apply; and (3) determine whether any other (non-Guideline) factor requires a variance from the Guideline-range sentence.

The sentencing process begins with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines establish a sentencing range based on the characteristics of the crime committed by the defendant (the “offense level”) and the defendant’s criminal history. The Supreme Court has determined that the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. Still, the judge must identify the Guideline range. The court may not, however, presume that the Guideline range is reasonable; rather, the court must continue with the remaining steps in the sentencing process before making a final decision.

Once the judge has identified the Guideline range, the next step is to determine whether the Guidelines allow for a departure from that range. The Guidelines provide that a departure is appropriate when (a) aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist, such that this case is an “unusual case,” outside the realm of the “typical” cases of this nature that were considered in developing the Guidelines; or (b) the prosecutor requests a departure on the ground that the defendant has provided “substantial assistance” in another case.

The final step in the sentencing process requires the judge to consider whether non-Guideline, statutory factors (i.e., factors established by law in the Sentencing Reform Act) justify a variance from the Guideline range. These factors include the unique circumstances of the defendant and the crime; the broader goals of federal sentencing and federal sentencing policy; the sentencing options available; and the Guideline range. If the court relies on these additional factors to vary the sentence, the court must issue a written opinion explaining its reasoning.

Restoring the Court’s Sentencing Discretion

For the thirty years, Congress successfully robbed Federal judges of sentencing discretion by requiring them to impose the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. By making the Federal Sentencing Guidelines mandatory, Congress attempted to remedy the sentencing disparities for seemingly similarly situated criminal defendants. While ostensibly arguing for a fairer system, these so-called “tough-on-crime” politicians were really targeting judicial empathy. Rarely, if ever, did these politicians anguish over a judge meting out too tough a sentence to some poor bastard. To straightjacket the judicial miscreants who refused to clobber the convicted, Congress passed Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Unfortunately for the accused, “Guidelines” was a misnomer; the guidelines were mandatory, allowing for almost no judicial input into the sentencing process. Under the “guidelines,” each crime began with a base score. To this base score, sentencing “enhancements” (additional factors – such as the defendant’s criminal history, if any, position within the criminal enterprise, fraudulent conduct, etc.) were added, driving up the point total. The point total determined whether an individual received straight probation or a lengthy prison sentence. A defendant convicted of a crime with a base score of “6” (a probatable offense) could easily serve a prison sentence of more than twenty years because of sentencing enhancements.

In 2005, after 18 years of suffocating insanity, the United States Supreme Court finally ruled mandatory application of the Guidelines unconstitutional in the cases of United States v. Brooker and United States v. Fanfan.

The Guidelines did not strip the judiciary of its power; it shifted that power, and then some, to Federal prosecutors. Like twisted revelers at Christmas time, these Federal avengers pre-determined sentence length by carefully selecting the offense with which to charge the accused and then hanging on it every enhancement ornament they could find. With no power with which to restrain the prosecutors, Federal judges were forced to give out lengthy and often undeservedly harsh sentences to defendants. Wisdom, imagination, and decency were no longer needed or even desirable traits for those seeking the elevation to the Federal bench – with the Guidelines, any imbecile who could count on his fingers could competently serve as a Federal judge.

The Guidelines persist – but as guidelines only. Federal judges have recovered their discretion and prosecutors have been knocked back on their asses – where they belong. Defendants sentenced to unduly severe and unwarranted Federal prison terms under the Sentencing Guidelines may now challenge those sentences. The Booker and Fanfan decisions will rescue untold numbers of Federal prisoners from years, if not decades, of irrational, costly and counterproductive incarceration.

Kevin J. Mahoney is a Federal criminal defense lawyer, author of Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination and on-air legal analyst.

TOP

Testimonials

  • NS, a DUI client,about 1 month ago

    Attorney Mahoney,

    I just wanted to say thank you for such a wonderful and excellent job you did for me. You were quite impressive up there and you really did your homework catching her in a few lies from previous testimony. You are the best! Even though I never want to be in this situation again, if I know anyone I will give them your name.

    Thank Amy for me too! She is a great asset to have in your office! Very pleasant and understanding.

    Again thank you and go Celtics!
     

    text

  • about 1 month ago

    Kevin Mahoney recently represented me in a case for destruction of property and disorderly conduct. He was extremely thorough and persistent, and despite a great deal of evidence against me, he managed to get the felony charge dropped without having to go to trial.

    I had never been in legal trouble before and had no idea how to proceed, and without his counsel, I am sure that I would have gotten convicted.

    He listened to my specific needs and always acted in my best interest. His knowledge, attention to detail, and general courtroom presence continued to amaze me throughout the entire process.
     

    text

  • M.K.about 1 month ago

    Dear Attorney Mahoney:

    I wish to express my sincere appreciation for your efforts on my behalf. Your defense was truly outstanding. The court room skills that you demonstrated and legal knowledge were truly incomparable. I’m wishing you the very best in your future endeavors.

    In addition, I ‘m looking forward to viewing the Jello Trial on Court T.V. Let me thank you once again.

     

    text

  • about 1 month ago

    Attorney Mahoney,

    Is very knowledgeable and very professional. He has just represented me in a case lasting a year and a half, and he made sure I got a fair trial with a fair jury. He kept me well informed about what would be happening in the court room and always had a well thought out defense for any route of attack the D.A. would be planning on.

    My trial took 2 and a half days and after the jury deliberated for approximately 23 minutes they came back with a “Not guilty” verdict. I would recommend Attorney Mahoney to anyone I know, but I sure hope I dont need him again. : ) .
     

    text

Call 617.492.0055

Available to Respond to Emergencies
24 Hours a Day

Directions

Kevin J. Mahoney’s New Book Coming Soon

The Title IX Sexual Harassment Handbook

"Attorney Mahoney is currently authoring an authoritative and strategy driven compendium on investigating and defending Title IX sexual assault cases for lawyers, students, and universities. The book will be available through James Publishing within months."

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • What Should I Do?
  • Forensics
  • Mahoney in the Media
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
© 2023 Mahoney Criminal Defense Group.
All Rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Disclaimer
footer-logo

For a Free in-office Consultation Call 617-492-0055

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • What Should I Do?
  • Forensics
  • Mahoney in the Media
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Practice Areas
  • Areas we serve
  • Mahoney In the Media