There are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. These books are written either by someone who was an inmate or by someone who worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They are full of anecdotes and lists. They may provide copies of forms used by the BOP to manage inmates as well as copies of rules and regulations pertaining to prisoners.
There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a prison consultant is just as important.
Prison consultants provide answers to questions from white collar federal defendants and their families, and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate the process of preparing for, and surviving the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that minimizes the amount of time you will spend in custody. The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could range from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves or their families for this ordeal.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison. Add to that the comfort of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone, and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. However, you only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
White Collar Defendants Need a Federal Prison Consultant
White collar defendants are usually faced with the prospect of having to go to prison for the first time. They are afraid of what they will face. They want to know how to prepare themselves and their families for their ordeal.
Where will I go? What will I do when I get there? Will there be violence? How am I going to manage? Who is going to care?
Prison consultants provide the answers to these questions and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate this process so you and your family can manage to survive the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that reduces the amount of time you will spend in custody. The goal is to prepare you to take advantage of the programs available that can reduce your stay in prison to an absolute minimum.
The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could involve anything from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves for prison. Even though most white collar defendants take care of their families, they start prison without preparing their families for this ordeal.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a personal trainer is just as important.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone. Add to that the comfort of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
You only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Where will I go? What will I do when I get there? Will there be violence? How am I going to manage? Who is going to care?
Prison consultants provide the answers to these questions and so much more. A good prison consultant can prepare you and your family to navigate this process so you and your family can manage to survive the experience of federal prison. You need to come out with the fewest scars possible.
Mistakes in prison can be costly. The goal is to conduct yourself in a way that reduces the amount of time you will spend in custody. The goal is to prepare you to take advantage of the programs available that can reduce your stay in prison to an absolute minimum.
The rules in prison are strict, and violations lead to drastic consequences. An innocent comment to the wrong person may lead to loss of good time credits or worse. A gesture that is perfectly acceptable in normal life can result in punishment in prison that could involve anything from solitary confinement to a transfer to a higher security prison. These mistakes are most likely to be made at the beginning of your sentence and they can be avoided.
No one who starts a prison term for the first time feels prepared enough for the experience. Even though most white collar defendants have spent their lives knowing how to prepare themselves for the other challenges they have faced in life, they do not do enough to prepare themselves for prison. Even though most white collar defendants take care of their families, they start prison without preparing their families for this ordeal.
Yes, there are books available that provide generic advice about prison and how to prepare for prison. There are also books available that provide advice about how to exercise. Who among us would rely on an exercise book when we could use a personal trainer instead? Prison is no different. The difference between reading a generic book and having a personal trainer is just as important.
The money invested in a prison consultant is nominal when compared to the benefits. Consider the benefit of knowing that your family has someone to call who can provide answers to their questions when you are gone. Add to that the comfort of knowing what to expect when you arrive at the gate. Combine that with being prepared to avoid mistakes and knowing how to minimize your time in prison and you have a sense of the value of your investment in a federal prison consultant.
You only have one chance to prepare for this experience. This is not the time to cut corners. Too much is at stake.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Government Prosecutions Should Not Be Based on Innuendo
In his closing arguments in the federal prosecution of a current United States Senator, the AUSA reportedly asked the jury to infer guilt from a statement made by the Senator years ago.
During his closing argument the prosecutor used a vague portion of a single piece of evidence that was only admissible at trial because of an exception to the hearsay rule. The prosecutor played a portion of a phone call between Senator Stevens and another witness that was secretly recorded. In the portion of the recording played for the jury, Senator Stevens made a vague reference to jail time.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the jury should infer from this vague reference that Senator Stevens had guilty knowledge of his alleged failure to follow Senate reporting requirements. The prosecutor argued to the jury – "who talks about spending a little time in jail unless they have done something wrong?"
My concern is not about the guilt or innocence of Senator Stevens. My concern is about the strategy and tactics used by federal prosecutors. In this case for example, the prosecutor argued that it is proper to use an inference from a snippet of vague evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal prosecutions should be held to a higher standard.
In the case in question, a case where the prosecution knew they would be under close scrutiny because of the profile of the defendant, the Court excluded other evidence from the trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. If we use the same lens to view the conduct of the prosecution that they are asking the jury to use to view the evidence against Senator Stevens, then where will that lead?
We have an opportunity to change course. We can reverse the trend toward criminalization of conduct. We can become a society that is understanding, a society that is not based on fear and hate.
Or not.
During his closing argument the prosecutor used a vague portion of a single piece of evidence that was only admissible at trial because of an exception to the hearsay rule. The prosecutor played a portion of a phone call between Senator Stevens and another witness that was secretly recorded. In the portion of the recording played for the jury, Senator Stevens made a vague reference to jail time.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the jury should infer from this vague reference that Senator Stevens had guilty knowledge of his alleged failure to follow Senate reporting requirements. The prosecutor argued to the jury – "who talks about spending a little time in jail unless they have done something wrong?"
My concern is not about the guilt or innocence of Senator Stevens. My concern is about the strategy and tactics used by federal prosecutors. In this case for example, the prosecutor argued that it is proper to use an inference from a snippet of vague evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal prosecutions should be held to a higher standard.
In the case in question, a case where the prosecution knew they would be under close scrutiny because of the profile of the defendant, the Court excluded other evidence from the trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. If we use the same lens to view the conduct of the prosecution that they are asking the jury to use to view the evidence against Senator Stevens, then where will that lead?
We have an opportunity to change course. We can reverse the trend toward criminalization of conduct. We can become a society that is understanding, a society that is not based on fear and hate.
Or not.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Judge Makes Wrong Ruling on Spector Trial Evidence
The judge in the Phil Spector retrial has made a mistake that could jeopardize the outcome. In response to pretrial motions, Judge Larry Fidler has permitted the use at trial of an inflammatory statement made by Spector years before the murder of Lana Clarkson.
Judge Fidler has ruled that a police witness can testify at the re-trial about a derogatory statement made by Spector regarding women in general. The question now becomes, even though prosecutors won the right to use the evidence, should they?
Spector’s defense reportedly argued that the statement should be prevented from use at trial because it is prejudicial. However, most evidence used by prosecutors at trial is prejudicial to the defendant. This ruling really raises another issue.
The fact that the statement may be prejudicial seems to be the only reason why a prosecutor would want to use this piece of evidence. The problem with introducing evidence of this nature is that it is designed to put the defendant in a bad light, however it does not tend to prove whether Spector committed the crime that is being tried.
Just because someone may have said something mean or thoughtless in the past does not tend to prove that they committed a crime years later. Imagine if, at every trial, the prosecution could present evidence of every other bad thing the defendant did during his life. That tactic may convince a jury that a defendant is a bad guy. However, evidence of that nature is usually excluded. Evidence that is prejudicial is usually only admitted if it can prove a relevant issue in the case.
The point of a criminal prosecution should not be merely to win the case. Prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than attorneys in civil cases. Prosecutors are the representatives of the people and their focus should be on the truth. Ideally, personal vendettas should have no role in a criminal prosecution. Likewise, nor should a win-at-all-cost mentality.
The prosecution may want to reconsider whether it is proper to actually introduce this evidence in this trial. Even though the prosecution has won the right to introduce the evidence, they may want to take a step back and consider what they are planning to do. Do we -- the people -- really want prosecutors to obtain convictions by cutting corners or taking advantage of mistakes? Even when the mistake is in a ruling made by the judge? I hope not.
Judge Fidler has ruled that a police witness can testify at the re-trial about a derogatory statement made by Spector regarding women in general. The question now becomes, even though prosecutors won the right to use the evidence, should they?
Spector’s defense reportedly argued that the statement should be prevented from use at trial because it is prejudicial. However, most evidence used by prosecutors at trial is prejudicial to the defendant. This ruling really raises another issue.
The fact that the statement may be prejudicial seems to be the only reason why a prosecutor would want to use this piece of evidence. The problem with introducing evidence of this nature is that it is designed to put the defendant in a bad light, however it does not tend to prove whether Spector committed the crime that is being tried.
Just because someone may have said something mean or thoughtless in the past does not tend to prove that they committed a crime years later. Imagine if, at every trial, the prosecution could present evidence of every other bad thing the defendant did during his life. That tactic may convince a jury that a defendant is a bad guy. However, evidence of that nature is usually excluded. Evidence that is prejudicial is usually only admitted if it can prove a relevant issue in the case.
The point of a criminal prosecution should not be merely to win the case. Prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than attorneys in civil cases. Prosecutors are the representatives of the people and their focus should be on the truth. Ideally, personal vendettas should have no role in a criminal prosecution. Likewise, nor should a win-at-all-cost mentality.
The prosecution may want to reconsider whether it is proper to actually introduce this evidence in this trial. Even though the prosecution has won the right to introduce the evidence, they may want to take a step back and consider what they are planning to do. Do we -- the people -- really want prosecutors to obtain convictions by cutting corners or taking advantage of mistakes? Even when the mistake is in a ruling made by the judge? I hope not.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Senator Steven’s Trial Goes to the Jury of Public Opinion
Federal Sentencing Expert, Geoffrey Mousseau, was asked his opinion on the outcome of the trial of Senator Ted Stevens.
Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, is being tried for violating ethics laws.
It is hard to support either side in this case, according to Mousseau. On the one hand, we have federal prosecutors who reportedly are mugging for the jury. On the other hand, we have someone who, during his 30-year tenure in the United States Senate has participated in the largest expansion of prison populations in US history.
US attorneys have one of the most powerful positions in society today. In the wake of scandals involving the politicization of that office, it is horrifying to think that the federal prosecutor in this case may be making faces to the jury as Stevens attempted to respond to her questions.
The reports on Senator Stevens’ conduct are not much better. Apparently he has taken a page from Clinton’s playbook and is attempting to parse words into oblivion. Is it really true that a member of the Senate does not understand a gift? Is it proper for a Senator to pretend to be confused in front of a jury? A loan? A gift?
A federal trial seems to be an inappropriate forum for undignified behavior. One can only hope that media reports are exaggerated and that the participants are treating the trial of a Senator as a solemn pursuit of the truth.
Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, is being tried for violating ethics laws.
It is hard to support either side in this case, according to Mousseau. On the one hand, we have federal prosecutors who reportedly are mugging for the jury. On the other hand, we have someone who, during his 30-year tenure in the United States Senate has participated in the largest expansion of prison populations in US history.
US attorneys have one of the most powerful positions in society today. In the wake of scandals involving the politicization of that office, it is horrifying to think that the federal prosecutor in this case may be making faces to the jury as Stevens attempted to respond to her questions.
The reports on Senator Stevens’ conduct are not much better. Apparently he has taken a page from Clinton’s playbook and is attempting to parse words into oblivion. Is it really true that a member of the Senate does not understand a gift? Is it proper for a Senator to pretend to be confused in front of a jury? A loan? A gift?
A federal trial seems to be an inappropriate forum for undignified behavior. One can only hope that media reports are exaggerated and that the participants are treating the trial of a Senator as a solemn pursuit of the truth.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Federal Prison Consultant – Navigating A Minefield
Federal Prison Expert, Geoffrey Mousseau, was asked during a radio interview this morning, whether he negotiated with the Bureau of Prisons on behalf of his clients.
Mr. Mousseau’s responded emphatically.
No.
Mr. Mousseau reminded the audience that the BOP is in control of inmates. Inmates do not negotiate with the BOP. Instead, an expert federal prison consultant teaches his clients how to navigate through the prison mine field.
The goal is to get the client to the other side of the mine field. The client needs to know where the mines are. And the client must have the utmost respect for the mines, remembering that, while he traverses the field, the mines are in charge.
Mr. Mousseau noted that his role is not political, nor is he providing legal advice. The prison consultant does not deal with issues of guilt or innocence. The prison consultant provides information to his client, their family and the defense team. The primary objective is to inform and educate, to demystify this otherwise frightening experience.
The prison consultant makes sure that his clients know what programs are available while in prison so the client is prepared to use those programs to return the client to his family, and to his life, as soon as possible. The clients of an experienced prison consultant will know in advance about rules, socialization, what to expect, and how to avoid costly mistakes.
As a nation we are sending people to prison at an alarming rate. Even as crime rates decline, prison populations continue to increase. One consequence is the likelihood that the prison experience will touch more of our lives. As this happens, more people will rely on prison consultants to help them navigate through this process.
This service was formerly available only to the wealthy. Now, because of companies like White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc., this critical knowledge is attainable to almost everyone. Learn what you need to know before it is too late.
Mr. Mousseau’s responded emphatically.
No.
Mr. Mousseau reminded the audience that the BOP is in control of inmates. Inmates do not negotiate with the BOP. Instead, an expert federal prison consultant teaches his clients how to navigate through the prison mine field.
The goal is to get the client to the other side of the mine field. The client needs to know where the mines are. And the client must have the utmost respect for the mines, remembering that, while he traverses the field, the mines are in charge.
Mr. Mousseau noted that his role is not political, nor is he providing legal advice. The prison consultant does not deal with issues of guilt or innocence. The prison consultant provides information to his client, their family and the defense team. The primary objective is to inform and educate, to demystify this otherwise frightening experience.
The prison consultant makes sure that his clients know what programs are available while in prison so the client is prepared to use those programs to return the client to his family, and to his life, as soon as possible. The clients of an experienced prison consultant will know in advance about rules, socialization, what to expect, and how to avoid costly mistakes.
As a nation we are sending people to prison at an alarming rate. Even as crime rates decline, prison populations continue to increase. One consequence is the likelihood that the prison experience will touch more of our lives. As this happens, more people will rely on prison consultants to help them navigate through this process.
This service was formerly available only to the wealthy. Now, because of companies like White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc., this critical knowledge is attainable to almost everyone. Learn what you need to know before it is too late.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Federal Prison Consultant Discusses Selecting a Defense Attorney.
Defendants wonder how to choose a defense attorney. And almost every defendant wonders if he made the right choice at some time during his case.
Both concerns could not be more valid.
Many things factor into the choice of defense counsel. Price, experience and reputation are issues that must be considered. It also helps to know your strategy.
Are you going to plead out? If so, then you may want a different lawyer than if you plan to go to trial.
Once you get past basic competence – is the lawyer an expert regarding your charges – there are other, more subtle factors. Is the lawyer you are considering familiar with the judge and prosecutor? Does the lawyer have too many other clients? Is the lawyer distracted by family or business and not able to devote sufficient time and attention to you?
Do not be shy. The selection of a lawyer usually has a material impact on the outcome of your case. Get as many recommendations as you can and interview the lawyers. Go to their office. Look for staff support. See whether there are other clients loitering around. Ask to talk to someone they have recently represented. Ask about their record, their expertise regarding your charges, and their familiarity with the prosecutors and the judge.
Act quickly, but be thorough. Do not be impulsive. Act as though this is a major decision because it is. Talk to several different lawyers. Get referrals from every valid and reliable source available to you.
Once you have chosen your lawyer, you should not walk away from the situation. Usually you are going to be a vital source of information to your lawyer regarding your case. You are also going to have to make critical strategic and tactical decisions in your case. Your decisions on these issues is only going to be as valid as the information upon which those decisions are based. Participate, learn, watch and listen.
But what if, after you hired a lawyer, you start to get that funny feeling … did I make the right decision? If you are having problems with your lawyer, imagine how he is perceived by the prosecution and the judge. And if you plan to go to trial, imagine how he will be perceived by a jury.
Because the decision to hire a criminal defense lawyer is made at a time when you are not at your level-headed best, mistakes are made.
If you think you made a mistake and hired the wrong lawyer, admit it and move on. The chances of winning an appeal based on the argument that your lawyer was not competent are extremely low.
If you think your lawyer is making mistakes or mishandling your case, then you owe it to yourself to bring that to the attention of your lawyer. Let him know that you think there is a problem. If he can fix the problem, then you may be fine. And if he cannot or will not fix the problem, then look for a replacement.
At least when you look for a replacement lawyer, you will have the perspective derived from your bad experience with lawyer number one. You will have learned something and can avoid making the same mistake. Often times you can get your trial date moved so the new guy can get up to speed. And the prosecution and the judge may even appreciate your decision if the replacement lawyer is actually an improvement.
Remember that they are working for you.
Both concerns could not be more valid.
Many things factor into the choice of defense counsel. Price, experience and reputation are issues that must be considered. It also helps to know your strategy.
Are you going to plead out? If so, then you may want a different lawyer than if you plan to go to trial.
Once you get past basic competence – is the lawyer an expert regarding your charges – there are other, more subtle factors. Is the lawyer you are considering familiar with the judge and prosecutor? Does the lawyer have too many other clients? Is the lawyer distracted by family or business and not able to devote sufficient time and attention to you?
Do not be shy. The selection of a lawyer usually has a material impact on the outcome of your case. Get as many recommendations as you can and interview the lawyers. Go to their office. Look for staff support. See whether there are other clients loitering around. Ask to talk to someone they have recently represented. Ask about their record, their expertise regarding your charges, and their familiarity with the prosecutors and the judge.
Act quickly, but be thorough. Do not be impulsive. Act as though this is a major decision because it is. Talk to several different lawyers. Get referrals from every valid and reliable source available to you.
Once you have chosen your lawyer, you should not walk away from the situation. Usually you are going to be a vital source of information to your lawyer regarding your case. You are also going to have to make critical strategic and tactical decisions in your case. Your decisions on these issues is only going to be as valid as the information upon which those decisions are based. Participate, learn, watch and listen.
But what if, after you hired a lawyer, you start to get that funny feeling … did I make the right decision? If you are having problems with your lawyer, imagine how he is perceived by the prosecution and the judge. And if you plan to go to trial, imagine how he will be perceived by a jury.
Because the decision to hire a criminal defense lawyer is made at a time when you are not at your level-headed best, mistakes are made.
If you think you made a mistake and hired the wrong lawyer, admit it and move on. The chances of winning an appeal based on the argument that your lawyer was not competent are extremely low.
If you think your lawyer is making mistakes or mishandling your case, then you owe it to yourself to bring that to the attention of your lawyer. Let him know that you think there is a problem. If he can fix the problem, then you may be fine. And if he cannot or will not fix the problem, then look for a replacement.
At least when you look for a replacement lawyer, you will have the perspective derived from your bad experience with lawyer number one. You will have learned something and can avoid making the same mistake. Often times you can get your trial date moved so the new guy can get up to speed. And the prosecution and the judge may even appreciate your decision if the replacement lawyer is actually an improvement.
Remember that they are working for you.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Second Chance Act Helps Even Fewer Inmates
In a recent article regarding the Second Chance Act and its impact on federal prisoners, I made the point that the provision dealing with older inmates would actually help an extremely small number of inmates.
After accounting for all of the exceptions to the rule regarding early release for prisoners over 65, I estimated that it would impact about 650 inmates nationally.
Kenny Linn, Chairman of FedCure wrote to me regarding that number. FedCure is touted on their web site as the world’s leading advocate for America’s ever growing federal inmate population. FedCure is a leading voice for inmates and their families seeking to reform the federal prison system. They do on a national level what federal prison consultants do on an individual level.
Mr. Linn questioned the basis for the estimate of 650 inmates. Like me, he wants to make the point that, after much hype, this provision of the Second Chance Act provided false hope at best.
When I calculated the number of inmates who may qualify for benefits under this provision of the Second Chance Act, I considered the percentage of inmates over the age of 65 who had completed the mandatory 10 years or 75 percent of their time and were not convicted of violent crimes. Mr. Linn added another component to the calculation of inmates who may qualify for this provision. Mr. Linn also considered the effect that health costs would have on whether the remaining population would actually qualify for benefits.
By considering this additional factor, Mr. Linn’s number is no more than 200. No more than 200 inmates will benefit from this provision of the Second Chance Act.
If Congress had enacted tax legislation that only affected 200 Americans we would be up in arms. But because this bill was touted as Prison Reform, are we supposed to be pleased?
FedCure and I are on the same page.
It is sad to learn that, after all of the hype, so few people will benefit from an aspect of the law that gave them and their families hope – false hope.
I am not an academic scholar in this area. My expertise is based on my experience as the clerk in the Lompoc Camp. I served as the welcoming committee and the ombudsman for approximately 600 inmates who cycled through during my tenure.
The opinions I express in my articles are based on my research.
Although we may not agree on a number contained in one of my articles, FedCure’s position is consistent with my research and serves to make the same point.
Mr. Linn and I have engaged in a discussion regarding this issue and, although I thought I was making the point adequately, other sources believe that the actual number of inmates served by this provision of the Second Chance Act will be smaller.
We can look at these figures and be cynical. Or we can adopt the perception that the Second Chance Act is really the first chance taken by Congress and the BOP to provide badly needed prison reform.
After accounting for all of the exceptions to the rule regarding early release for prisoners over 65, I estimated that it would impact about 650 inmates nationally.
Kenny Linn, Chairman of FedCure wrote to me regarding that number. FedCure is touted on their web site as the world’s leading advocate for America’s ever growing federal inmate population. FedCure is a leading voice for inmates and their families seeking to reform the federal prison system. They do on a national level what federal prison consultants do on an individual level.
Mr. Linn questioned the basis for the estimate of 650 inmates. Like me, he wants to make the point that, after much hype, this provision of the Second Chance Act provided false hope at best.
When I calculated the number of inmates who may qualify for benefits under this provision of the Second Chance Act, I considered the percentage of inmates over the age of 65 who had completed the mandatory 10 years or 75 percent of their time and were not convicted of violent crimes. Mr. Linn added another component to the calculation of inmates who may qualify for this provision. Mr. Linn also considered the effect that health costs would have on whether the remaining population would actually qualify for benefits.
By considering this additional factor, Mr. Linn’s number is no more than 200. No more than 200 inmates will benefit from this provision of the Second Chance Act.
If Congress had enacted tax legislation that only affected 200 Americans we would be up in arms. But because this bill was touted as Prison Reform, are we supposed to be pleased?
FedCure and I are on the same page.
It is sad to learn that, after all of the hype, so few people will benefit from an aspect of the law that gave them and their families hope – false hope.
I am not an academic scholar in this area. My expertise is based on my experience as the clerk in the Lompoc Camp. I served as the welcoming committee and the ombudsman for approximately 600 inmates who cycled through during my tenure.
The opinions I express in my articles are based on my research.
Although we may not agree on a number contained in one of my articles, FedCure’s position is consistent with my research and serves to make the same point.
Mr. Linn and I have engaged in a discussion regarding this issue and, although I thought I was making the point adequately, other sources believe that the actual number of inmates served by this provision of the Second Chance Act will be smaller.
We can look at these figures and be cynical. Or we can adopt the perception that the Second Chance Act is really the first chance taken by Congress and the BOP to provide badly needed prison reform.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Why Plead Guilty If You Are Innocent?
Why do people plead guilty to crimes then profess their innocence? Or, to put it another way, why would someone plead guilty to a crime they did not commit? This curious phenomenon has recently risen to the attention of the American public.
This year several bankers from England plead guilty to a Federal indictment rather than go to trial. All of them received prison sentences. As part of their plea agreement they were permitted to serve their prison sentences in England. Why does this case matter?
Those bankers now claim that they did not commit a crime. According to them, the only reason they plead guilty was to avoid the risk of going to trial and facing a prison sentence in the US. The press in England is paying attention to this case and so should we.
This summer an executive tried to plead guilty to a federal crime that he did not think he committed. He must have been aware that he had very little chance of being acquitted in today's environment. And he surely did not want to risk getting a prison sentence that would have ruined his life. So, he marched into court to plead guilty so he could get a deal from the prosecutors. The judge rejected his plea deal when he admitted that he did not think he committed a crime.
So this man is now going to have to go to trial under circumstances where his chances of prevailing are small, in a system that most fear gives longer sentences to those who go to trial.
The statistics for the percentage of people charged with a federal crime who end up spending time in prison are overwhelming. Over 90% of all people charged with a federal crime end up convicted. Virtually everyone who goes to trial loses. And over 80% of everyone convicted of a federal crime spend time in prison. Those numbers are staggering.
Even more staggering is the risk of lengthy federal prison terms. Whether true or not, the belief is that courts issue higher sentences to those who go to trial rather than accept a plea deal.
Under the federal system, one of the most important factors in determining the length of a prison term is the amount of money involved. In drug cases there are mandatory minimum sentences, usually over 10 years. In cases involving money -- business cases, investment cases, anything involving property -- it doesn't take much money to send sentence lengths soaring. And the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply when determining the amount of money involved in a crime.
For these reasons, reasonable people will agree to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. The risks of going to trial, the risk that a court can find that your supposed crime involved substantial amounts of money, are too great.
The bottom line is, if you are charged with a federal crime, you are probably going to go to prison. If you have been charged with a federal crime your first thought should not be whether you are going to go to trial to prove your innocence. And if you are guilty you certainly should not risk going to trial. Your first thought should be how to keep your prison sentence to the absolute minimum. Leave the question of guilt or innocence to the academics. Make sure your sentence is short enough so you can pick up the pieces when you are released.
This year several bankers from England plead guilty to a Federal indictment rather than go to trial. All of them received prison sentences. As part of their plea agreement they were permitted to serve their prison sentences in England. Why does this case matter?
Those bankers now claim that they did not commit a crime. According to them, the only reason they plead guilty was to avoid the risk of going to trial and facing a prison sentence in the US. The press in England is paying attention to this case and so should we.
This summer an executive tried to plead guilty to a federal crime that he did not think he committed. He must have been aware that he had very little chance of being acquitted in today's environment. And he surely did not want to risk getting a prison sentence that would have ruined his life. So, he marched into court to plead guilty so he could get a deal from the prosecutors. The judge rejected his plea deal when he admitted that he did not think he committed a crime.
So this man is now going to have to go to trial under circumstances where his chances of prevailing are small, in a system that most fear gives longer sentences to those who go to trial.
The statistics for the percentage of people charged with a federal crime who end up spending time in prison are overwhelming. Over 90% of all people charged with a federal crime end up convicted. Virtually everyone who goes to trial loses. And over 80% of everyone convicted of a federal crime spend time in prison. Those numbers are staggering.
Even more staggering is the risk of lengthy federal prison terms. Whether true or not, the belief is that courts issue higher sentences to those who go to trial rather than accept a plea deal.
Under the federal system, one of the most important factors in determining the length of a prison term is the amount of money involved. In drug cases there are mandatory minimum sentences, usually over 10 years. In cases involving money -- business cases, investment cases, anything involving property -- it doesn't take much money to send sentence lengths soaring. And the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply when determining the amount of money involved in a crime.
For these reasons, reasonable people will agree to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. The risks of going to trial, the risk that a court can find that your supposed crime involved substantial amounts of money, are too great.
The bottom line is, if you are charged with a federal crime, you are probably going to go to prison. If you have been charged with a federal crime your first thought should not be whether you are going to go to trial to prove your innocence. And if you are guilty you certainly should not risk going to trial. Your first thought should be how to keep your prison sentence to the absolute minimum. Leave the question of guilt or innocence to the academics. Make sure your sentence is short enough so you can pick up the pieces when you are released.
Bankers Will Reap a Windfall from the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act”
The current economic crisis is undeniably vast and frightening. This is precisely the type of situation that deserves governmental intervention. The problem is that we do not trust the current administration.
We were told that the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation was essential and that our economic future depended on its passage. But what does the Bill actually say? President Bush told us the bill was designed to vest unparalleled power in the hands of a few men as the only way to resolve this crisis. However, the text of the bill was not publicly available until after the House of Representatives initially rejected the legislation.
The bill, entitled the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, is well over 100 pages.
This legislation contains a section entitled “Preventing Unjust Enrichment.” This is the key section of the Bill. This section will prohibit the sale of a “troubled asset” to the government at a price more than what was originally paid by the seller. It certainly seems fair that companies would not be able to profit by selling “troubled assets” to the government.
However, the next sentence reads as follows: “This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship, or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.”
This part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 provides a windfall to the companies that recently purchased the distressed assets of WaMu, Lehman Bros., Indy Mac, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This language was not accidental.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the notoriously fragmented American banking system is going through a decade's worth of consolidation in a matter of weeks, with the U.S. government often acting as matchmaker.
Anyone reading the financial pages over the past months must have wondered how companies could justify making such rapid purchases of substantial banking and financial portfolios. Normally one does not see acquisitions in the billions of dollars closed in over-night transactions. Now we know why.
The Bush Administration’s emergency legislation will provide a bailout. This Bill will permit the companies that purchased troubled assets to dump them onto the taxpayers at a profit!
Imagine the conversations that must have taken place between senior members of the Bush Administration and banking executives. “Don’t worry. If you acquire WaMu, Indy Mac and Wachovia and their bad mortgage debt, we will help you.” “We will take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you guys can still make a profit.” “If you buy Lehman’s assets from its bankruptcy, we will help you turn a profit.” Once again, the Bush Administration successfully exploited our anxieties so that we would go along with their plan. They must have presumed we would not need to know the details.
We were told that the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation was essential and that our economic future depended on its passage. But what does the Bill actually say? President Bush told us the bill was designed to vest unparalleled power in the hands of a few men as the only way to resolve this crisis. However, the text of the bill was not publicly available until after the House of Representatives initially rejected the legislation.
The bill, entitled the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, is well over 100 pages.
This legislation contains a section entitled “Preventing Unjust Enrichment.” This is the key section of the Bill. This section will prohibit the sale of a “troubled asset” to the government at a price more than what was originally paid by the seller. It certainly seems fair that companies would not be able to profit by selling “troubled assets” to the government.
However, the next sentence reads as follows: “This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship, or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.”
This part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 provides a windfall to the companies that recently purchased the distressed assets of WaMu, Lehman Bros., Indy Mac, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This language was not accidental.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the notoriously fragmented American banking system is going through a decade's worth of consolidation in a matter of weeks, with the U.S. government often acting as matchmaker.
Anyone reading the financial pages over the past months must have wondered how companies could justify making such rapid purchases of substantial banking and financial portfolios. Normally one does not see acquisitions in the billions of dollars closed in over-night transactions. Now we know why.
The Bush Administration’s emergency legislation will provide a bailout. This Bill will permit the companies that purchased troubled assets to dump them onto the taxpayers at a profit!
Imagine the conversations that must have taken place between senior members of the Bush Administration and banking executives. “Don’t worry. If you acquire WaMu, Indy Mac and Wachovia and their bad mortgage debt, we will help you.” “We will take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you guys can still make a profit.” “If you buy Lehman’s assets from its bankruptcy, we will help you turn a profit.” Once again, the Bush Administration successfully exploited our anxieties so that we would go along with their plan. They must have presumed we would not need to know the details.
Why are Federal Prison Populations Increasing While Crime Rates Drop?
Two primary reasons are behind this phenomenon. Both reasons suggest that this phenomenon arises out of legislation from 20 years ago that created the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and abolished parole.
First, prison sentences are longer so inmates are spending more time in federal prison. For the past 20 years, anyone convicted of a federal crime was sentenced pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These were not guidelines in the traditional sense. The Guidelines required federal judges to sentence defendants to terms within limited prescribed ranges. The length of sentences was determined by factors such as the amount of money and number of victims involved in the crime. For purposes of determining the length of a sentence, the perspective shifted away from the offender and onto the victims.
Consistent with the shift away from rehabilitation and toward retribution, Congress repealed parole at the same time it enacted the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For the past 20 years, federal inmates have been sentenced to substantial terms without the possibility of parole.
The second element behind this phenomenon is the efficiency of federal prosecutions. Faced with the threat of a draconian sentence length, a higher percentage of defendants plead guilty to crimes rather than face the risk of trial. Since the late 1980’s, over 80% of people charged with a federal crime spent time in prison. During this time period, several campaigns were waged against specific categories of offenses. For example, we are still fighting the war on drugs and rounding up illegal aliens. The past 20 years has also seen the criminalization of previously non-criminal conduct and a broad expansion of the notion of a conspiracy.
Thus, although there may be a marginal drop in the rate of violent crime, we are imprisoning more non-violent offenders for longer terms without the possibility of parole.Recent Supreme Court decisions gave some hope that this cycle would be broken. These decisions permitted judges to have more discretion when issuing sentences. Judges must still consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. They are now permitted some latitude and are not required to blindly follow the former restricted parameters. Statistics reveal, however, that judges are not varying in any significant way from the Guideline sentencing ranges.
First, prison sentences are longer so inmates are spending more time in federal prison. For the past 20 years, anyone convicted of a federal crime was sentenced pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These were not guidelines in the traditional sense. The Guidelines required federal judges to sentence defendants to terms within limited prescribed ranges. The length of sentences was determined by factors such as the amount of money and number of victims involved in the crime. For purposes of determining the length of a sentence, the perspective shifted away from the offender and onto the victims.
Consistent with the shift away from rehabilitation and toward retribution, Congress repealed parole at the same time it enacted the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For the past 20 years, federal inmates have been sentenced to substantial terms without the possibility of parole.
The second element behind this phenomenon is the efficiency of federal prosecutions. Faced with the threat of a draconian sentence length, a higher percentage of defendants plead guilty to crimes rather than face the risk of trial. Since the late 1980’s, over 80% of people charged with a federal crime spent time in prison. During this time period, several campaigns were waged against specific categories of offenses. For example, we are still fighting the war on drugs and rounding up illegal aliens. The past 20 years has also seen the criminalization of previously non-criminal conduct and a broad expansion of the notion of a conspiracy.
Thus, although there may be a marginal drop in the rate of violent crime, we are imprisoning more non-violent offenders for longer terms without the possibility of parole.Recent Supreme Court decisions gave some hope that this cycle would be broken. These decisions permitted judges to have more discretion when issuing sentences. Judges must still consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. They are now permitted some latitude and are not required to blindly follow the former restricted parameters. Statistics reveal, however, that judges are not varying in any significant way from the Guideline sentencing ranges.
Federal Prison Consultant Predicts Many Indictments From Financial Crisis
A Federal Prison Consultant who advises white collar defendants on how to prepare for their prison terms predicts that many people in the financial sector will be indicted.
Geoff Mousseau, owner of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. in Los Angeles, stated his opinion at a meeting last evening.
Given the magnitude of this crisis and the need for government intervention to stabilize the financial markets, it is no surprise that criminal investigations have commenced. It is also fair to assume, for these same reasons, that charges will be filed against many, many individuals from this industry.
Unlike the fallout from the stock option back-dating scandal two years ago, where experts incorrectly predicted a wave of criminal prosecutions, the targets of the current investigations are of a lower profile and have much less political clout.
The targets of the new investigations should be concerned about the threat of substantial prison sentences. Current federal sentencing law has evolved modestly during recent years as a result of Supreme Court cases. These Supreme Court cases permit federal trial judges to have more latitude when issuing criminal sentences. In practice, however, most judges issue sentences that are very close to the terms prescribed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The sentences prescribed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for white collar offenders depend heavily on the amount of money involved in the case. For example, if two defendants are both convicted of fraud, the person who obtained more money from his fraud will receive a longer sentence.
And the amount of money involved does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of sentencing. The evidentiary standard is lower than what is normally required for proof in a criminal case.
The current financial crisis involves amounts of money that are unimaginably large. For this reason alone, the people charged with crimes arising out of this crisis will face the threat of prison terms measured in decades, rather than in years.
This threat has other ramifications as well. One of the factors used by the Bureau of Prisons when it assigns inmates to prison is the length of the sentence. Under the BOP rules, anyone who receives a sentence longer than 10 years will not qualify to go to a prison camp. They will be assigned to a prison will cell-blocks, bars, and razor wire fences.
What do you do then if you are a subject of investigation as a result of the financial crisis? Cooperate. Assemble a competent legal defense team consisting of attorneys, economists and sentencing consultants. Prepare for your negotiations with prosecutors like you were negotiating for your life, because you will be. Mr. Mousseau and White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. can be reached on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
Geoff Mousseau, owner of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. in Los Angeles, stated his opinion at a meeting last evening.
Given the magnitude of this crisis and the need for government intervention to stabilize the financial markets, it is no surprise that criminal investigations have commenced. It is also fair to assume, for these same reasons, that charges will be filed against many, many individuals from this industry.
Unlike the fallout from the stock option back-dating scandal two years ago, where experts incorrectly predicted a wave of criminal prosecutions, the targets of the current investigations are of a lower profile and have much less political clout.
The targets of the new investigations should be concerned about the threat of substantial prison sentences. Current federal sentencing law has evolved modestly during recent years as a result of Supreme Court cases. These Supreme Court cases permit federal trial judges to have more latitude when issuing criminal sentences. In practice, however, most judges issue sentences that are very close to the terms prescribed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The sentences prescribed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for white collar offenders depend heavily on the amount of money involved in the case. For example, if two defendants are both convicted of fraud, the person who obtained more money from his fraud will receive a longer sentence.
And the amount of money involved does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of sentencing. The evidentiary standard is lower than what is normally required for proof in a criminal case.
The current financial crisis involves amounts of money that are unimaginably large. For this reason alone, the people charged with crimes arising out of this crisis will face the threat of prison terms measured in decades, rather than in years.
This threat has other ramifications as well. One of the factors used by the Bureau of Prisons when it assigns inmates to prison is the length of the sentence. Under the BOP rules, anyone who receives a sentence longer than 10 years will not qualify to go to a prison camp. They will be assigned to a prison will cell-blocks, bars, and razor wire fences.
What do you do then if you are a subject of investigation as a result of the financial crisis? Cooperate. Assemble a competent legal defense team consisting of attorneys, economists and sentencing consultants. Prepare for your negotiations with prosecutors like you were negotiating for your life, because you will be. Mr. Mousseau and White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. can be reached on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
The Second Chance Act of 2007
Recently a law was enacted to help offenders make a transition from Federal Prison to the regular honest working world. This law has become known as the Second Chance Act. This law was eagerly awaited by inmates and their families. It was also the subject of many rumors and much misinformation.
In essence, the new law does little and will provide benefits to only a few inmates. The most significant and widespread benefit from this law has been a change in the BOP's policy regarding half-way house time. Prior to this new law, the BOP permitted only a certain amount of half-way house time for inmates -- up to 6 months or 10% of the sentence, whichever was less. Thus, only those inmates serving 60 months or more were permitted 6 months half-way house time.
The exception to this rule was for those inmates who completed the RDAP program. They were permitted up to 6 months half-way house time regardless of the length of their sentence. Now, all inmates may be considered for up to 6 months half-way house time. This alteration in the BOP's policy affects only non-RDAP inmates who are serving less than 60 months.
With respect to the other aspects of the bill, specifically the pilot program to consider early release for elderly inmates and additional assistance beyond half-way house programs, the BOP must publish regulations, wait for comments on them and then proceed. As far as I know, they have not published relevant regulations. Consequently, because the rule-making process may take over 6 months, it may be some time before the limited benefits of the Second Chance Act are available.
The early release provision of the Second Chance Act applies to a very limited group. According to its terms, only offenders over age 65 who have served 10 years or 75% of their time and who did not commit a violent or sex crime can be released early. This applies, therefore, to approximately 650 of the 200,000 federal prisoners. The early release program is to begin on October 1 2008.
The Act also provides that the BOP may, but is not required to, allow up to 1 year of half-way house time. However, this provision of the Act has met with a great deal of skepticism. For example, at a Sentencing Commission symposium held in Washington on July 15, 2008, BOP Director Harley Lappin admitted that there would not be a substantial move to increase half-way house time beyond 6 months. Director Lappin relied upon research studies to support the conclusion that more than six months in a half-way house is not productive for most inmates.
The economics are also not encouraging for anyone hoping to spend more than 6 months at a half-way house. It is cheaper to house inmates in prison than in a half-way house. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a half-way house is $64. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a low-security prison is $48. There was also a different bill with a similar name. The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 was designed to amend the federal criminal code to permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Although this would be beneficial to anyone convicted of a federal crime, it has not been passed into law. Currently, unlike most state felons, federal felons cannot expunge their conviction. Still, expungement provides only the marginal benefit of making it more difficult for someone to find out the existence of a conviction. It does not make the conviction go away.
In essence, the new law does little and will provide benefits to only a few inmates. The most significant and widespread benefit from this law has been a change in the BOP's policy regarding half-way house time. Prior to this new law, the BOP permitted only a certain amount of half-way house time for inmates -- up to 6 months or 10% of the sentence, whichever was less. Thus, only those inmates serving 60 months or more were permitted 6 months half-way house time.
The exception to this rule was for those inmates who completed the RDAP program. They were permitted up to 6 months half-way house time regardless of the length of their sentence. Now, all inmates may be considered for up to 6 months half-way house time. This alteration in the BOP's policy affects only non-RDAP inmates who are serving less than 60 months.
With respect to the other aspects of the bill, specifically the pilot program to consider early release for elderly inmates and additional assistance beyond half-way house programs, the BOP must publish regulations, wait for comments on them and then proceed. As far as I know, they have not published relevant regulations. Consequently, because the rule-making process may take over 6 months, it may be some time before the limited benefits of the Second Chance Act are available.
The early release provision of the Second Chance Act applies to a very limited group. According to its terms, only offenders over age 65 who have served 10 years or 75% of their time and who did not commit a violent or sex crime can be released early. This applies, therefore, to approximately 650 of the 200,000 federal prisoners. The early release program is to begin on October 1 2008.
The Act also provides that the BOP may, but is not required to, allow up to 1 year of half-way house time. However, this provision of the Act has met with a great deal of skepticism. For example, at a Sentencing Commission symposium held in Washington on July 15, 2008, BOP Director Harley Lappin admitted that there would not be a substantial move to increase half-way house time beyond 6 months. Director Lappin relied upon research studies to support the conclusion that more than six months in a half-way house is not productive for most inmates.
The economics are also not encouraging for anyone hoping to spend more than 6 months at a half-way house. It is cheaper to house inmates in prison than in a half-way house. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a half-way house is $64. The average daily cost to house an inmate in a low-security prison is $48. There was also a different bill with a similar name. The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 was designed to amend the federal criminal code to permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Although this would be beneficial to anyone convicted of a federal crime, it has not been passed into law. Currently, unlike most state felons, federal felons cannot expunge their conviction. Still, expungement provides only the marginal benefit of making it more difficult for someone to find out the existence of a conviction. It does not make the conviction go away.
Federal prison consultants are a valuable part of any white collar criminal defense team.
Defense lawyers cannot be expected to know all of the answers to the questions that white collar defendants and their families have. Federal prison consultants provide the answers to these practical, non-legal questions. By providing answers, federal prison consultants can reduce the anxiety that everyone faces before entering prison.
The critical factor when choosing a federal prison consultant is the credibility of their staff. White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. (located on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com) specializes in important federal criminal cases.
You want to know about prison, how to reduce the length of the prison term, and how to ease your transition to and from prison.
WCSC knows the answers.
They use their experience to give you credible, clear, and candid information when it is needed most.
As federal prison consultants, White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. is unique. No other company has their dedicated staff. The heart of the company is a former attorney who has tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your questions and provide guidance through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there.
All federal prison consulting services are available to the clients of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. Their services include consulting with White Collar defendants their family and defense counsel, analyzing issues relevant to mitigation of potential sentences, and comparing options such as placement and programs. They will also describe the strategic alternatives that are available to you.
All federal prison consulting benefits are available to the clients of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. These benefits include calmer and more informed clients, better utilization of attorney time and credible answers from a credible resource.
Learn what you need to know. And do it now, when it can still help you. White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. provides federal prison consulting. They can be found on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
Federal Prison Consultants are important. No other company provides our services because no other company has our dedicated staff. The heart of our company is a former attorney who has tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your questions and provide guidance through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there.
The critical factor when choosing a federal prison consultant is the credibility of their staff. White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. (located on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com) specializes in important federal criminal cases.
You want to know about prison, how to reduce the length of the prison term, and how to ease your transition to and from prison.
WCSC knows the answers.
They use their experience to give you credible, clear, and candid information when it is needed most.
As federal prison consultants, White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. is unique. No other company has their dedicated staff. The heart of the company is a former attorney who has tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your questions and provide guidance through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there.
All federal prison consulting services are available to the clients of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. Their services include consulting with White Collar defendants their family and defense counsel, analyzing issues relevant to mitigation of potential sentences, and comparing options such as placement and programs. They will also describe the strategic alternatives that are available to you.
All federal prison consulting benefits are available to the clients of White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. These benefits include calmer and more informed clients, better utilization of attorney time and credible answers from a credible resource.
Learn what you need to know. And do it now, when it can still help you. White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. provides federal prison consulting. They can be found on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
Federal Prison Consultants are important. No other company provides our services because no other company has our dedicated staff. The heart of our company is a former attorney who has tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your questions and provide guidance through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there.
White Collar Consultant Advises Bankers Not to Lie to Investigators.
The Bailout bill is now law. Attention now shifts to the bankers who were at the helm of the sinking ships.
Federal investigators and Congress are busy looking for people to blame. There is much pent up anger that will be poured out onto anyone who is perceived to be at fault for any aspect of the current financial crisis.
But who is advising the targets of these investigations? Unless and until these people have legal counsel, they will only be able to depend on their own judgment.
The first instinct of someone who may be the target of a federal investigation is self-preservation. However, the things that one does in response may lead to more trouble later.
Many people who come under scrutiny are never charged with crimes for which they are investigated but rather with failing to tell the truth and obstructing justice. The most famous example of this is Martha Stewart, who was convicted of lying to investigators, rather than securities fraud, in a case about a well-timed stock sale.
So, before you destroy documents, erase computer records, burn receipts, or arrange for an alibi, consider that investigators may ultimately want a bigger prize than you. If you are truthful, if you are perceived as cooperative, you may only be used as a source of information in the quest for a defendant with a higher profile.
Given the size of the financial crisis, given the number of players involved, federal investigatory resources are going to be stretched thin. If you act impulsively, if you act according to your self-preservation instinct, you may end up buying time in prison for something other than your role as a banker.
You may end up, as Martha did, allowing them to make an easy case against you for obstruction or perjury.
Federal investigators and Congress are busy looking for people to blame. There is much pent up anger that will be poured out onto anyone who is perceived to be at fault for any aspect of the current financial crisis.
But who is advising the targets of these investigations? Unless and until these people have legal counsel, they will only be able to depend on their own judgment.
The first instinct of someone who may be the target of a federal investigation is self-preservation. However, the things that one does in response may lead to more trouble later.
Many people who come under scrutiny are never charged with crimes for which they are investigated but rather with failing to tell the truth and obstructing justice. The most famous example of this is Martha Stewart, who was convicted of lying to investigators, rather than securities fraud, in a case about a well-timed stock sale.
So, before you destroy documents, erase computer records, burn receipts, or arrange for an alibi, consider that investigators may ultimately want a bigger prize than you. If you are truthful, if you are perceived as cooperative, you may only be used as a source of information in the quest for a defendant with a higher profile.
Given the size of the financial crisis, given the number of players involved, federal investigatory resources are going to be stretched thin. If you act impulsively, if you act according to your self-preservation instinct, you may end up buying time in prison for something other than your role as a banker.
You may end up, as Martha did, allowing them to make an easy case against you for obstruction or perjury.
Families of White Collar Defendants Need Answers
We are imprisoning our population at an alarming and ever-increasing rate. Every white collar defendant who is charged with a federal felony has a family who suffers along with him or her.
Where can this growing number of people go for answers?
Criminal defense lawyers generally do not know about federal prison. Although they are the experts when it comes to plea deals, trials and sentencing issues, they do not know what happens when their client walks through the prison gates.
The statistics indicate that approximately 80% of all defendants charged with federal crimes spend time in prison. So, for 80% of their clients, criminal defense lawyers do not know the answers to questions that are vital to clients and their families.
There is help. In what started as a trend for only the most wealthy white collar defendants, the field of prison consultants was born.
Now, this field has begun to mature. There are now three different types of prison consultants, each with their own value to a potential client. There is very little difference in cost.
The first two types of prison consultants have limited utility for white collar defendants. These two types are comprised of either former BOP employees, or former inmates who do not have a white collar background. Neither of these categories of consultants can speak to the needs of white collar defendants or their families.
White collar defendants and their families are best served by federal prison consultants who, although they have first-hand experience with the federal prison system, they also have white collar backgrounds. The most effective of these are former trial attorneys who, after a brief stint in a federal prison, are now employed as prison consultants.
Prison consultants who are former attorneys have the distinct advantage of being able to assist their clients with the legal process. They can become an integral part of a legal defense team. They are trained to spot issues quickly and solve problems for their clients efficiently. And they have experience with the types of battles that arise in virtually every case.
Books are helpful. You can get some information on the web. But there is no substitute for a quality white collar prison consultant. Access to someone who can answer your questions, as well as the questions your family will have, provides peace of mind at a critical time. And if you are able to spend less time in the custody of the BOP, they will have been invaluable.
Where can this growing number of people go for answers?
Criminal defense lawyers generally do not know about federal prison. Although they are the experts when it comes to plea deals, trials and sentencing issues, they do not know what happens when their client walks through the prison gates.
The statistics indicate that approximately 80% of all defendants charged with federal crimes spend time in prison. So, for 80% of their clients, criminal defense lawyers do not know the answers to questions that are vital to clients and their families.
There is help. In what started as a trend for only the most wealthy white collar defendants, the field of prison consultants was born.
Now, this field has begun to mature. There are now three different types of prison consultants, each with their own value to a potential client. There is very little difference in cost.
The first two types of prison consultants have limited utility for white collar defendants. These two types are comprised of either former BOP employees, or former inmates who do not have a white collar background. Neither of these categories of consultants can speak to the needs of white collar defendants or their families.
White collar defendants and their families are best served by federal prison consultants who, although they have first-hand experience with the federal prison system, they also have white collar backgrounds. The most effective of these are former trial attorneys who, after a brief stint in a federal prison, are now employed as prison consultants.
Prison consultants who are former attorneys have the distinct advantage of being able to assist their clients with the legal process. They can become an integral part of a legal defense team. They are trained to spot issues quickly and solve problems for their clients efficiently. And they have experience with the types of battles that arise in virtually every case.
Books are helpful. You can get some information on the web. But there is no substitute for a quality white collar prison consultant. Access to someone who can answer your questions, as well as the questions your family will have, provides peace of mind at a critical time. And if you are able to spend less time in the custody of the BOP, they will have been invaluable.
Federal Judge Rejects Plea Deal Because of No Prison Time
On September 29, 2008, Federal Judge Cormac Carney rejected a proposed plea deal that would have given probation to Broadcom Corp. co-founder Henry Samueli. Samueli previously plead guilty to one felony count of making a false statement to the SEC. The Court’s decision permits Samueli to withdraw that guilty plea.
Samueli is also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal indictment of Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III, the company's former CEO, and William Ruehle, its former chief financial officer.In his ruling, Carney noted that Nicholas and Ruehle, if convicted, could theoretically be sentenced to more than 300 years each in prison. Carney pointed out that people convicted in run of the mill fraud cases serve on average 17 months in prison. Carney also relied on the U.S. Probation Office's report that concluded probation was insufficient and recommended Samueli spend a year in prison.
Carney’s ruling suggests that he agrees with the Probation report’s conclusion that Samueli deserves to go to prison for lying to regulators about his role in an alleged $2.2-billion stock-option scam.Carney rejected the plea deal for several reasons. The Judge believed that a significant prison sentence was warranted if the allegations are true. Judge Carney also criticized an unusual provision in the proposed plea. The provision called for Samueli to pay $12 million to the government even though the maximum fine permitted for the charge to which Samueli agreed to plead guilty is $250,000. Judge Carney was not willing to accept a plea agreement that gives the impression that justice is for sale. He was concerned the payment provision would erode the public's trust in the fundamental fairness of the justice system.Although it may be rare for a federal judge to reject a prosecution deal with a defendant, rejections have occurred more often recently.
In a recent article, this author reviewed why white collar defendants were pleading guilty to crimes they believed they did not commit. One of the main reasons suggested in that article for this phenomenon was the risk of substantial prison sentences.
Judge Carney, for example, sentenced money manager James P. Lewis Jr. to 30 years in prison. Mr. Lewis, who is 62 years old, has 22 years remaining on that sentence. Clearly Mr. Samueli, who is 53, would prefer to avoid a similar draconian result.
But there are few options available to white collar defendants when judges begin rejecting plea deals worked out with prosecutors. Who knows what the result would have been if Samueli had agreed to pay the $12 million as restitution, rather than as a fine? Samueli is a defendant in an SEC lawsuit that says Broadcom's $2.2-billion understatement of compensation expense because of backdated options was the largest among a host of such cases the SEC looked into.
Judge Carney’s ruling indicates that Samueli will spend some time in prison. This is no different than the fate of most federal white collar defendants.
White collar defendants have special concerns when they prepare for prison. And high-profile white collar defendants have even more concerns. Federal prison consultants are experts who provide answers in these special cases. By using the resources of a federal prison consultant, and in particular a white collar consultant who has been through this experience, high-profile defendants can avoid common mistakes. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results.
White collar defendants who utilize the wisdom of these specialized consultants will have candid, credible and clear information when they need it most.
Samueli is also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal indictment of Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III, the company's former CEO, and William Ruehle, its former chief financial officer.In his ruling, Carney noted that Nicholas and Ruehle, if convicted, could theoretically be sentenced to more than 300 years each in prison. Carney pointed out that people convicted in run of the mill fraud cases serve on average 17 months in prison. Carney also relied on the U.S. Probation Office's report that concluded probation was insufficient and recommended Samueli spend a year in prison.
Carney’s ruling suggests that he agrees with the Probation report’s conclusion that Samueli deserves to go to prison for lying to regulators about his role in an alleged $2.2-billion stock-option scam.Carney rejected the plea deal for several reasons. The Judge believed that a significant prison sentence was warranted if the allegations are true. Judge Carney also criticized an unusual provision in the proposed plea. The provision called for Samueli to pay $12 million to the government even though the maximum fine permitted for the charge to which Samueli agreed to plead guilty is $250,000. Judge Carney was not willing to accept a plea agreement that gives the impression that justice is for sale. He was concerned the payment provision would erode the public's trust in the fundamental fairness of the justice system.Although it may be rare for a federal judge to reject a prosecution deal with a defendant, rejections have occurred more often recently.
In a recent article, this author reviewed why white collar defendants were pleading guilty to crimes they believed they did not commit. One of the main reasons suggested in that article for this phenomenon was the risk of substantial prison sentences.
Judge Carney, for example, sentenced money manager James P. Lewis Jr. to 30 years in prison. Mr. Lewis, who is 62 years old, has 22 years remaining on that sentence. Clearly Mr. Samueli, who is 53, would prefer to avoid a similar draconian result.
But there are few options available to white collar defendants when judges begin rejecting plea deals worked out with prosecutors. Who knows what the result would have been if Samueli had agreed to pay the $12 million as restitution, rather than as a fine? Samueli is a defendant in an SEC lawsuit that says Broadcom's $2.2-billion understatement of compensation expense because of backdated options was the largest among a host of such cases the SEC looked into.
Judge Carney’s ruling indicates that Samueli will spend some time in prison. This is no different than the fate of most federal white collar defendants.
White collar defendants have special concerns when they prepare for prison. And high-profile white collar defendants have even more concerns. Federal prison consultants are experts who provide answers in these special cases. By using the resources of a federal prison consultant, and in particular a white collar consultant who has been through this experience, high-profile defendants can avoid common mistakes. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results.
White collar defendants who utilize the wisdom of these specialized consultants will have candid, credible and clear information when they need it most.
California Ballot Measure Reducing Penalty for Non-Violent Drug Offenders Should Be Model for Feds.
One measure on the ballot in California this year would reform the way non-violent drug offenders are treated by the criminal justice system. In a state that has routinely increased criminal penalties, this measure is seen as a major departure.
This measure is not endorsed by members of the criminal justice system. For example, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan said the measure would be like throwing money down a rat hole.
California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst reports that costs over time associated with the measure, estimated at up to $1 billion, would be balanced by an equivalent amount of savings by reducing incarceration.
The measure would direct most non-violent drug-related offenders to treatment, rather than prison. The measure would also require increased levels of treatment for those already incarcerated. And the measure would revamp the parole system, reducing parole lengths and making it more difficult to return parole violators to the prison population.
This measure should be followed closely by the feds. A substantial amount of federal criminal resources go to fight drug-related crime. If non-violent drug-related offenders were provided treatment in the federal system, rather than incarceration, inmate populations would decrease. More importantly, society would benefit if drug addiction was treated rather than criminalized.
Geoff Mousseau normally writes about white collar issues. However, many criminal acts are either fueled by drugs or motivated by the need to buy drugs, even when the person is a stock broker, lawyer, or politician.
Sometimes we need to take a critical look at whether policy choices are working. Has the criminalization of non-violent behavior resulting from drug addiction lead to a reduction in drug addiction? Has this policy really provided a benefit? Unless the answer to this question is a resounding yes, then we should be open to alternatives.
The measure currently on the California ballot is an alternative worthy of consideration.
Geoff Mousseau can be found on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
This measure is not endorsed by members of the criminal justice system. For example, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan said the measure would be like throwing money down a rat hole.
California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst reports that costs over time associated with the measure, estimated at up to $1 billion, would be balanced by an equivalent amount of savings by reducing incarceration.
The measure would direct most non-violent drug-related offenders to treatment, rather than prison. The measure would also require increased levels of treatment for those already incarcerated. And the measure would revamp the parole system, reducing parole lengths and making it more difficult to return parole violators to the prison population.
This measure should be followed closely by the feds. A substantial amount of federal criminal resources go to fight drug-related crime. If non-violent drug-related offenders were provided treatment in the federal system, rather than incarceration, inmate populations would decrease. More importantly, society would benefit if drug addiction was treated rather than criminalized.
Geoff Mousseau normally writes about white collar issues. However, many criminal acts are either fueled by drugs or motivated by the need to buy drugs, even when the person is a stock broker, lawyer, or politician.
Sometimes we need to take a critical look at whether policy choices are working. Has the criminalization of non-violent behavior resulting from drug addiction lead to a reduction in drug addiction? Has this policy really provided a benefit? Unless the answer to this question is a resounding yes, then we should be open to alternatives.
The measure currently on the California ballot is an alternative worthy of consideration.
Geoff Mousseau can be found on the web at FederalPrisonInc.com.
Defense Lawyers Can Benefit By Adding Prison Consultants to the Defense Team.
Yesterday your client had a life. That may change as a result of today’s indictment.
Yesterday your client was a businessman, an owner. He was a husband and a father. Today he faces the possibility of losing everything, his family, his freedom, his future, his dreams, and his reputation. His life may be changed forever.
Yesterday your client told people what to do. His demands were met. Starting today your client is in the grips of the government and he will be told what to do.
Yesterday your client was known for his power, his prestige, and his philanthropy. As of today his name will be preceded by the title “the defendant.”
Your client is going to be making certain critical decisions that will have an overwhelming impact on his future. He will have to make these decisions at a time when he will be ill equipped to make them. He will be suffering from massive stress and his family will be thrown into turmoil and fear. His normal resources may be cut off and he is going to have to put his faith in others. Even though he doesn’t want to trust anyone, he is going to have to trust you.
He can trust you. You are the criminal defense expert. This is your business and this is what you do. You are the lawyer. You know the law. All of your knowledge, training, experience, and resources are devoted to obtaining a successful outcome for your client. So what’s the problem?
The problem can be summarized in a simple number, a statistic – 93%. Approximately 93% of all people indicted by the US Attorney’s Office are convicted. And most of those spend time in federal prison.
Your numbers are better than that. That is one of the reasons why you have the reputation and stature that you do. Despite these well known and overwhelming odds, you are still able to win. That is all your client wants. Boy does he want you to win.
So your job, your focus, is to navigate the time period between your client’s indictment and when he is sentenced. Even in those rare instances where there is a trial, you’re essentially done when he is sentenced. Great. On to the next case.
But not so fast. A few things have happened to your client in the meantime. Chances are he is now a felon. Chances are he is facing a prison sentence. Chances are he is scared to death. And chances are things happened between the indictment and sentencing that will affect how much of his sentence he has to serve, where he has to go, and what he will do when he gets there.
Your white-collar client expects, as he always has, to have expert advice available to him to answer the questions that are consuming him and his family:
“Where am I going to go?” We don’t know. The judge made a recommendation but we don’t think the BOP is required to follow it. “What?!”
“What is it like in prison?” We don’t know because we’ve never been. “What!?”
“What can I bring?” Check the BOP web site. “I did and it didn’t help.”
“What kind of people are there?” “What will I do all day?” “Is it violent?” “Is there any way to get out early?” “Can I bring my medicine?” “Can I see my wife?” “Can I see my doctor?” We don’t know. Check the internet. Maybe there are some books.
I was indicted. I was represented by fantastic lawyers and they did an amazing job. And, as most are, I was also convicted. Fortunately my lawyers really shined when it came to sentencing. But, and this is a big “but” for someone in my position, my lawyers could only help up to a point. I had all of the questions your clients ask, and so many others. But no matter where I looked I couldn’t get answers. Consequently, I walked into federal prison apprehensive and anxious.
Truthfully, even if your client and his family are relentless with their questions, you can’t be expected to know everything. And unless, heaven forbid, you actually go through this experience yourself, you can’t really know how to answer certain types of questions. You can’t be expected to provide answers for things you don’t know, but your client doesn’t know who else to ask. And your client doesn’t even know what to ask.
However, you didn’t get to where you are in your profession by being satisfied with what you don’t know. If you don’t know something, you want to at least know where to go for answers. You go to the experts for the advice you need. But what are you supposed to do here?
Let me tell you from my experience that your client will want to talk with someone who has been there, someone like him, a white collar professional who had been put in an untenable situation with no knowledge of how to navigate the ordeal. And I know that he should talk to that person early enough in the process to make a difference.
For example, the first serious thing that will happen to your client happens early, and it is a major event. It won’t seem like much. It didn’t seem like much to me. And given the casual way this event was handled by my lawyers and everyone else, I had no clue of the significance of this brief meeting. I’m talking about the meeting with the probation officer that leads to the PSR/PSI. You may know how important that document is during the sentencing process. I now know, because I’ve been through the system, that the report is very important for other reasons too. The PSI report turns out to be the first thing read by each member of the BOP staff each time they come in contact with a new inmate. They rely on the content of that report, to one extent or another, for every decision they make while someone is in prison. The content of that report is used to make decisions as wide ranging as bunk assignments, medical care, and qualification for sentence reduction programs. Yes, having the right advice at the commencement of the sentencing process can help your client ease his stay and, most importantly, help him to reduce his time in prison. Not having that advice early enough is like leaving the handcuffs on.
Dealing with the BOP is not always intuitive. In one case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing with a negotiated prison term. During the hearing, this highly respected criminal defense lawyer successfully argued for a three month reduction in the pre-agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense lawyer, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized their mistake. As a result of the three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a BOP program that would have reduced the defendant’s sentence by 15 more months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the 3-month reduction in the sentence meant the defendant was no longer eligible for a much larger reduction in his sentence.
Are you responsible to know all about the mechanics of BOP operations and prison life? The answer is no. These are not legal questions and this is not legal advice. But how much of your time has been consumed away from the “legal” side of your cases over the years by these same questions? If an expert had been available to your client, someone who could answer these questions, then you could have spent more of your time on his case. After all, you have someone prepare trial graphics, you use jury consultants, economists, and other experts. This is another way to provide your client with better service and free up your time to do what you do best.
You know that there is critical information that can provide valuable advantages to your client. Given the likelihood that someone who is indicted will be incarcerated, your client should be referred to an expert on these matters from the very beginning of the case. Once in the system, everything you know about getting what you want or need, and how to get it will have changed. Sometimes doing the right thing can be wrong. This is a bureaucratic system and the people and their tactics must be understood by anyone who wants to safely navigate through the prison experience.
White collar defendants are best served by an expert who was also a white collar defendant. I am one of these experts. I am a former attorney who was indicted and became a federal prisoner. I vividly recall all of the questions I had. I vividly recall my own concerns and fears and those of my family. But most importantly, I was the clerk at Lompoc, where I was responsible for resolving the day-to-day problems of 600 prisoners. It was my job to introduce all of these men to prison and to act as their unofficial ombudsman with the staff and administration. I use all of those experiences when I consult with those who are indicted and who are going through this process. I know that my time spent with these people and their families is going to make their experience more bearable – the time before prison, the transition to prison, and their stay as a “guest of the government.”
I pay particular attention to those things that can make sentences as bearable and as brief as possible. I also know that, because clients are not distracting their lawyers with questions that I can answer, their entire legal team functions more smoothly.
Yesterday your client was a businessman, an owner. He was a husband and a father. Today he faces the possibility of losing everything, his family, his freedom, his future, his dreams, and his reputation. His life may be changed forever.
Yesterday your client told people what to do. His demands were met. Starting today your client is in the grips of the government and he will be told what to do.
Yesterday your client was known for his power, his prestige, and his philanthropy. As of today his name will be preceded by the title “the defendant.”
Your client is going to be making certain critical decisions that will have an overwhelming impact on his future. He will have to make these decisions at a time when he will be ill equipped to make them. He will be suffering from massive stress and his family will be thrown into turmoil and fear. His normal resources may be cut off and he is going to have to put his faith in others. Even though he doesn’t want to trust anyone, he is going to have to trust you.
He can trust you. You are the criminal defense expert. This is your business and this is what you do. You are the lawyer. You know the law. All of your knowledge, training, experience, and resources are devoted to obtaining a successful outcome for your client. So what’s the problem?
The problem can be summarized in a simple number, a statistic – 93%. Approximately 93% of all people indicted by the US Attorney’s Office are convicted. And most of those spend time in federal prison.
Your numbers are better than that. That is one of the reasons why you have the reputation and stature that you do. Despite these well known and overwhelming odds, you are still able to win. That is all your client wants. Boy does he want you to win.
So your job, your focus, is to navigate the time period between your client’s indictment and when he is sentenced. Even in those rare instances where there is a trial, you’re essentially done when he is sentenced. Great. On to the next case.
But not so fast. A few things have happened to your client in the meantime. Chances are he is now a felon. Chances are he is facing a prison sentence. Chances are he is scared to death. And chances are things happened between the indictment and sentencing that will affect how much of his sentence he has to serve, where he has to go, and what he will do when he gets there.
Your white-collar client expects, as he always has, to have expert advice available to him to answer the questions that are consuming him and his family:
“Where am I going to go?” We don’t know. The judge made a recommendation but we don’t think the BOP is required to follow it. “What?!”
“What is it like in prison?” We don’t know because we’ve never been. “What!?”
“What can I bring?” Check the BOP web site. “I did and it didn’t help.”
“What kind of people are there?” “What will I do all day?” “Is it violent?” “Is there any way to get out early?” “Can I bring my medicine?” “Can I see my wife?” “Can I see my doctor?” We don’t know. Check the internet. Maybe there are some books.
I was indicted. I was represented by fantastic lawyers and they did an amazing job. And, as most are, I was also convicted. Fortunately my lawyers really shined when it came to sentencing. But, and this is a big “but” for someone in my position, my lawyers could only help up to a point. I had all of the questions your clients ask, and so many others. But no matter where I looked I couldn’t get answers. Consequently, I walked into federal prison apprehensive and anxious.
Truthfully, even if your client and his family are relentless with their questions, you can’t be expected to know everything. And unless, heaven forbid, you actually go through this experience yourself, you can’t really know how to answer certain types of questions. You can’t be expected to provide answers for things you don’t know, but your client doesn’t know who else to ask. And your client doesn’t even know what to ask.
However, you didn’t get to where you are in your profession by being satisfied with what you don’t know. If you don’t know something, you want to at least know where to go for answers. You go to the experts for the advice you need. But what are you supposed to do here?
Let me tell you from my experience that your client will want to talk with someone who has been there, someone like him, a white collar professional who had been put in an untenable situation with no knowledge of how to navigate the ordeal. And I know that he should talk to that person early enough in the process to make a difference.
For example, the first serious thing that will happen to your client happens early, and it is a major event. It won’t seem like much. It didn’t seem like much to me. And given the casual way this event was handled by my lawyers and everyone else, I had no clue of the significance of this brief meeting. I’m talking about the meeting with the probation officer that leads to the PSR/PSI. You may know how important that document is during the sentencing process. I now know, because I’ve been through the system, that the report is very important for other reasons too. The PSI report turns out to be the first thing read by each member of the BOP staff each time they come in contact with a new inmate. They rely on the content of that report, to one extent or another, for every decision they make while someone is in prison. The content of that report is used to make decisions as wide ranging as bunk assignments, medical care, and qualification for sentence reduction programs. Yes, having the right advice at the commencement of the sentencing process can help your client ease his stay and, most importantly, help him to reduce his time in prison. Not having that advice early enough is like leaving the handcuffs on.
Dealing with the BOP is not always intuitive. In one case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing with a negotiated prison term. During the hearing, this highly respected criminal defense lawyer successfully argued for a three month reduction in the pre-agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense lawyer, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized their mistake. As a result of the three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a BOP program that would have reduced the defendant’s sentence by 15 more months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the 3-month reduction in the sentence meant the defendant was no longer eligible for a much larger reduction in his sentence.
Are you responsible to know all about the mechanics of BOP operations and prison life? The answer is no. These are not legal questions and this is not legal advice. But how much of your time has been consumed away from the “legal” side of your cases over the years by these same questions? If an expert had been available to your client, someone who could answer these questions, then you could have spent more of your time on his case. After all, you have someone prepare trial graphics, you use jury consultants, economists, and other experts. This is another way to provide your client with better service and free up your time to do what you do best.
You know that there is critical information that can provide valuable advantages to your client. Given the likelihood that someone who is indicted will be incarcerated, your client should be referred to an expert on these matters from the very beginning of the case. Once in the system, everything you know about getting what you want or need, and how to get it will have changed. Sometimes doing the right thing can be wrong. This is a bureaucratic system and the people and their tactics must be understood by anyone who wants to safely navigate through the prison experience.
White collar defendants are best served by an expert who was also a white collar defendant. I am one of these experts. I am a former attorney who was indicted and became a federal prisoner. I vividly recall all of the questions I had. I vividly recall my own concerns and fears and those of my family. But most importantly, I was the clerk at Lompoc, where I was responsible for resolving the day-to-day problems of 600 prisoners. It was my job to introduce all of these men to prison and to act as their unofficial ombudsman with the staff and administration. I use all of those experiences when I consult with those who are indicted and who are going through this process. I know that my time spent with these people and their families is going to make their experience more bearable – the time before prison, the transition to prison, and their stay as a “guest of the government.”
I pay particular attention to those things that can make sentences as bearable and as brief as possible. I also know that, because clients are not distracting their lawyers with questions that I can answer, their entire legal team functions more smoothly.
White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. specializes in important federal criminal cases. We complete your legal defense team.
White Collar Sentencing Consultants can provide benefits to our clients as soon as the legal defense team is assembled. One of the first crucial events that receive our attention is the preparation for the PSR/PSI report. Defense counsel know how important this document is to the sentencing recommendation. You may not know how many other ways this document is used that impact the client. For example, for one client, medical information was proposed to be set forth in a PSR/PSI. This information was proposed to be used because it may have had a nominal impact at sentencing, if any. However, had the information been included in the final version of the report, the BOP would have applied their regulations and could have recommended placement of the client in a far-away medical facility. We were able to avoid this result early and the client received placement at the federal prison location closest to his young family.
In another recent case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing to get a pre-negotiated prison term. He had not hired us. During the hearing his experienced attorney successfully argued for a three month reduction in the agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense attorney, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized the mistake. As a result of a three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a reduction of 15 months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the defendant was no longer eligible for a major reduction in his sentence.
Had we been hired at the right time, this tragic mistake would have been avoided. Still, we were able to arrange for an appropriate job assignment for the defendant. We were also able to arrange for his wife and family to visit him within days of his arrival at prison.
In still another case, even though we were consulted late in the process, we were able to obtain placement for a defendant into a program resulting in an 18-month reduction in the length of his incarceration. The 9th Circuit decided a case that had an effect on our client and we were able to take advantage of this development even though our client had been in prison for almost 2 years already. We keep informed of developments that provide benefits to our clients.
Our clients are armed with the information they need to obtain the best results. They can be placed in the appropriate location for the shortest period of time. They can take advantage of programs that are available, programs that may not be known to defense attorneys because they have not been in the system. And once incarcerated, our clients will know how to avoid mistakes. Significant attention is given to preparing our clients emotionally to deal with the adjustments required to assimilate into prison. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results. By avoiding mistakes, by knowing what to expect, our clients will not have to experience the draconian punishments used by staff, such as solitary confinement, and transfers to other prisons that are either more dangerous or farther from home.
Don’t let this happen to you clients or their family. Call or write us today. We are there to help.
Learn what you need to know.
And do it now, when it can still help you.
FederalPrisonInc.com
310-560-8000
In another recent case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing to get a pre-negotiated prison term. He had not hired us. During the hearing his experienced attorney successfully argued for a three month reduction in the agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense attorney, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized the mistake. As a result of a three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a reduction of 15 months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the defendant was no longer eligible for a major reduction in his sentence.
Had we been hired at the right time, this tragic mistake would have been avoided. Still, we were able to arrange for an appropriate job assignment for the defendant. We were also able to arrange for his wife and family to visit him within days of his arrival at prison.
In still another case, even though we were consulted late in the process, we were able to obtain placement for a defendant into a program resulting in an 18-month reduction in the length of his incarceration. The 9th Circuit decided a case that had an effect on our client and we were able to take advantage of this development even though our client had been in prison for almost 2 years already. We keep informed of developments that provide benefits to our clients.
Our clients are armed with the information they need to obtain the best results. They can be placed in the appropriate location for the shortest period of time. They can take advantage of programs that are available, programs that may not be known to defense attorneys because they have not been in the system. And once incarcerated, our clients will know how to avoid mistakes. Significant attention is given to preparing our clients emotionally to deal with the adjustments required to assimilate into prison. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results. By avoiding mistakes, by knowing what to expect, our clients will not have to experience the draconian punishments used by staff, such as solitary confinement, and transfers to other prisons that are either more dangerous or farther from home.
Don’t let this happen to you clients or their family. Call or write us today. We are there to help.
Learn what you need to know.
And do it now, when it can still help you.
FederalPrisonInc.com
310-560-8000
Federal Prison Consultant Answers Tough Questions
Clients of White Collar Sentencing Consultants have the answers to the following questions and more:
· What will the other inmates think of me?
· Will I be assaulted
· Will I be extorted?
· Will I be strip searched?
· Will I be given a body cavity search?
· What will a normal day be like?
· How will I pass the time?
· Can I exercise?
· What will I eat?
· Will I be locked in a cell?
· What will the sleeping arrangements be like?
· Will I have to shower in front of other men?
· Will I have to go to the bathroom in front of other men?
· Can I bring anything with me?
· Where will I be sent to prison?
· What about my medications?
· Will I be locked up with murderers and rapists?
· What if I get sick?
· Will everyone know the details of my crime?
· What will happen to my business?
· How soon and how often can I have visitors?
· What will the prison look like?
· Who will I eat with in the chow hall?
· What about gangs?
· Will I need money in prison? How much?
· Will I be forced to work? What kind of job will I get?
· Can I use the bathroom at any time day or night?
Can you afford not to know the answers to these questions?
· What will the other inmates think of me?
· Will I be assaulted
· Will I be extorted?
· Will I be strip searched?
· Will I be given a body cavity search?
· What will a normal day be like?
· How will I pass the time?
· Can I exercise?
· What will I eat?
· Will I be locked in a cell?
· What will the sleeping arrangements be like?
· Will I have to shower in front of other men?
· Will I have to go to the bathroom in front of other men?
· Can I bring anything with me?
· Where will I be sent to prison?
· What about my medications?
· Will I be locked up with murderers and rapists?
· What if I get sick?
· Will everyone know the details of my crime?
· What will happen to my business?
· How soon and how often can I have visitors?
· What will the prison look like?
· Who will I eat with in the chow hall?
· What about gangs?
· Will I need money in prison? How much?
· Will I be forced to work? What kind of job will I get?
· Can I use the bathroom at any time day or night?
Can you afford not to know the answers to these questions?
White Collar Sentencing Consultants, Inc. specializes in important federal criminal cases.
We complete your legal defense team.
White collar defendants and their families need answers. Your client wants to know about prison, how to reduce the length of his prison term, and how to ease his transition to and from prison.
We know the answers.
We use our experience to give you and your client credible, clear, and candid information when it is needed most.
No other company provides our services because no other company has our dedicated staff. The heart of our company is an experienced attorney who tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your client’s questions and provide counsel through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there. He has the unique and valuable perspective of a lawyer who was an inmate.
Our services include:
* Consulting with White Collar defendants, their family and defense counsel
* Analyzing issues relevant to mitigation of potential sentences
* Comparing your options such as placement and programs
* Describing strategic alternatives available to your client
Benefits include:
* Calmer and more informed clients
* Better utilization of attorney time
* Credible answers from a credible resource
Learn what you need to know.
And do it now, when it can still help you.
We can provide benefits to our clients as soon as the legal defense team is assembled. One of the first crucial events that receive our attention is the preparation for the PSR/PSI report. Defense counsel know how important this document is to the sentencing recommendation. You may not know how many other ways this document is used that impact the client. For example, for one client, medical information was proposed to be set forth in a PSR/PSI. This information was proposed to be used because it had a nominal impact at sentencing, if any. However, had the information been included in the final version of the report, the BOP would have applied their regulations and could have recommended placement of the client in a far-away medical facility. We were able to avoid this result early and the client received placement at the federal prison location closest to his young family.
In another recent case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing to get a pre-negotiated prison term. He had not hired us. During the hearing his experienced attorney successfully argued for a three month reduction in the agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense attorney, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized the mistake. As a result of a three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a reduction of 15 months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the defendant was no longer eligible for a major reduction in his sentence.
Had we been hired at the right time, this tragic mistake would have been avoided. Still, we were able to arrange for an appropriate job assignment for the defendant. We were also able to arrange for his wife and family to visit him within days of his arrival at prison.
In another case, even though we were consulted late in the process, we were able to obtain placement for a defendant into a program resulting in an 18-month reduction in the length of his incarceration. The 9th Circuit decided a case that had an effect on our client and we were able to take advantage of this development even though our client had been in prison for almost 2 years already. We keep informed of developments that provide benefits to our clients.
Our clients are armed with the information they need to obtain the best results. They can be placed in the appropriate location for the shortest period of time. They can take advantage of programs that are available, programs that may not be known to defense attorneys because they have not been in the system. And once incarcerated, our clients will know how to avoid mistakes. Significant attention is given to preparing our clients emotionally to deal with the adjustments required to assimilate into prison. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results. By avoiding mistakes, by knowing what to expect, our clients will not have to experience the draconian punishments used by staff, such as solitary confinement, and transfers to other prisons that are either more dangerous or farther from home.
Don’t let this happen to you or your family. Call or write us today. We are there to help.
White collar defendants and their families need answers. Your client wants to know about prison, how to reduce the length of his prison term, and how to ease his transition to and from prison.
We know the answers.
We use our experience to give you and your client credible, clear, and candid information when it is needed most.
No other company provides our services because no other company has our dedicated staff. The heart of our company is an experienced attorney who tried over 100 jury trials. He also recently spent 15 months in Federal Prison where he worked as the Lompoc Camp “clerk” until early 2008. His duties there included resolving the complaints and problems of over 600 prisoners, with staff contact at all levels of administration. He can answer your client’s questions and provide counsel through this process with compassion and commitment because he has been there. He has the unique and valuable perspective of a lawyer who was an inmate.
Our services include:
* Consulting with White Collar defendants, their family and defense counsel
* Analyzing issues relevant to mitigation of potential sentences
* Comparing your options such as placement and programs
* Describing strategic alternatives available to your client
Benefits include:
* Calmer and more informed clients
* Better utilization of attorney time
* Credible answers from a credible resource
Learn what you need to know.
And do it now, when it can still help you.
We can provide benefits to our clients as soon as the legal defense team is assembled. One of the first crucial events that receive our attention is the preparation for the PSR/PSI report. Defense counsel know how important this document is to the sentencing recommendation. You may not know how many other ways this document is used that impact the client. For example, for one client, medical information was proposed to be set forth in a PSR/PSI. This information was proposed to be used because it had a nominal impact at sentencing, if any. However, had the information been included in the final version of the report, the BOP would have applied their regulations and could have recommended placement of the client in a far-away medical facility. We were able to avoid this result early and the client received placement at the federal prison location closest to his young family.
In another recent case, a former lawyer who was represented by a prominent attorney appeared at a sentencing hearing to get a pre-negotiated prison term. He had not hired us. During the hearing his experienced attorney successfully argued for a three month reduction in the agreed length of the sentence. Although this sounds like a wonderful result, a result that would confirm the value of that defense attorney, it was not. Neither the client, who had been a lawyer, nor his criminal defense attorney, realized the mistake. As a result of a three-month reduction in the sentence, the client was no longer eligible for a reduction of 15 months! Yes, due to the rules governing programs available to prisoners, the defendant was no longer eligible for a major reduction in his sentence.
Had we been hired at the right time, this tragic mistake would have been avoided. Still, we were able to arrange for an appropriate job assignment for the defendant. We were also able to arrange for his wife and family to visit him within days of his arrival at prison.
In another case, even though we were consulted late in the process, we were able to obtain placement for a defendant into a program resulting in an 18-month reduction in the length of his incarceration. The 9th Circuit decided a case that had an effect on our client and we were able to take advantage of this development even though our client had been in prison for almost 2 years already. We keep informed of developments that provide benefits to our clients.
Our clients are armed with the information they need to obtain the best results. They can be placed in the appropriate location for the shortest period of time. They can take advantage of programs that are available, programs that may not be known to defense attorneys because they have not been in the system. And once incarcerated, our clients will know how to avoid mistakes. Significant attention is given to preparing our clients emotionally to deal with the adjustments required to assimilate into prison. Mistakes in prison lead to harsh results. By avoiding mistakes, by knowing what to expect, our clients will not have to experience the draconian punishments used by staff, such as solitary confinement, and transfers to other prisons that are either more dangerous or farther from home.
Don’t let this happen to you or your family. Call or write us today. We are there to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)