Federal Drug Defendants Who Don’t Plead Guilty Spend Three Times Longer In Prison, Report Finds

Because most of these federal drug convictions incorporate mandatory minimum sentences, it is the prosecutor, not the judge, who determines what the sentence will be if convicted by the charges they file. The so-called “trial penalty” imposed by prosecutors costs some drug defendants a life of freedom, particularly because prosecutors lob on additional sentencing factors or “enhancements” such as prior convictions for minor offenses and the presence of a gun to ratchet up the sentence of those who don’t accept a plea deal the first time around. In some instances, this coerces defendants to eventually accept a deal. Others like Sandra Avery who go to trial are made an example of:

Sandra Avery was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse who served in the army and the army reserves, earned a college degree, overcame an addiction to crack, became a born-again Christian, and worked as an accountant. But in her early forties, her life spun out of control: she became addicted to crack cocaine again, lost her job, and started delivering and selling small amounts of crack for her husband, a crack dealer.

In 2005, Avery was arrested and indicted by a federal grand jury for possessing 50 grams of crack with intent to deliver, an offense then carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. Avery refused to enter into a plea agreement with the government because it did not offer anything less than 10 years and because, as she says, “I simply was not in my right mind at the time.” She was convicted after trial, and sentenced to life. Because there is no parole in the federal system, she will remain in prison until she dies.

The life sentence resulted from the government’s choice to trigger a sentencing enhancement based on Avery’s previous drug convictions. During the early 1990s, she had been convicted three times under Florida law for possessing small amounts of crack for her personal use; she told Human Rights Watch that the value of drugs in those three cases amounted to less than $100 and she was sentenced to community supervision.

When Human Rights Watch asked Avery’s prosecutor why he sought the enhancement in her case, he said “because it applied.” He said the policy in his office is to seek such enhancements whenever they are applicable, although there is “room to negotiate” if a defendant pleads guilty and agrees to cooperate with the government. His office policy also permits prosecutors to seek approval from their superiors not to file for the enhancement, which did not happen in Avery’s case. Asked whether he thought Avery’s life sentence was just, he refused to comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *