Legal experts are losing their minds on Twitter over the Manafort sentencing
"Outrageously lenient."
Laurence Tribe, a Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School and constitutional law expert, tweeted shortly after the verdict, calling the sentence "outrageously lenient."
"Manafort’s 47-month sentence in ED Va is outrageously lenient," he tweeted. "Judge Ellis has inexcusably perverted justice and the guidelines. His pretrial comments were a dead giveaway. The DC sentence next week had better be consecutive."
"47 months is a joke."
Former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig called the sentencing a "joke" and "unjust."
"A below-guidelines sentence would’ve been perfectly fair but 47 months is a joke," he tweeted.
"Steal millions from US Government, violate bail, get convicted by jury, fake cooperate, lie to prosecutors, refuse to accept responsibility - and get an enormous break. That’s an unjust sentence."
"Two different kinds of justice."
Walter Shaub, an attorney who focuses on government ethics, who formerly served as the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, also responded to Manafort's sentencing, seemingly referring to the fact that some get harsher sentences for lesser crimes.
"They sure have two different kinds of justice in this country," he said in a tweet.
A possible explanation
A popular legal Twitter account called "PopeHat," which is operated by Ken White, a former federal prosecutor and current criminal-defense and First Amendment litigator in Los Angeles, published a detailed thread hypothesizing why the sentence was lenient.
He pointed out that Judge Ellis has criticized mandatory minimum sentencing for drug and gun laws, but that he cannot give lesser sentences to those convicted of those crimes because of congressional laws requiring mandatory minimum sentences.
"Federal Judges are often on an axis outside of left-right," according to White. "It's about judicial discretion vs. Congressional limits. Many federal judges always despised the Sentencing Guidelines, because it limits what they see as their proper absolute discretion to choose a sentence."
47 months for Manafort before Judge Ellis. That's about 40% of what I guessed, 120 months. It's a very substantial departure (although almost certainly a legal sentence) from the guidelines of 19-24 years.
/1
/2 A departure from 19 years to under 4 years is very dramatic. It's the kind of departure defense lawyers dream of. It's the kind of departure that's FAR more likely to be enjoyed by the sort of person who commits crimes with banks and wires than drugs or guns.
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019/3 It's pretty surprisingly lenient (though, in context, longer than average for white collar crime). Judge Jackson comes next. She can sentence up to 10, and can make it concurrent or consecutive. This changes my assessment of what she'll do. I suspect she'll max him. /end
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019
/4 Postcript: I totally get why some people think this shows pro-Trump or pro-conservative or anti-Democratic bias on the part of Judge Ellis. If you believe it I'm unlikely to dissuade you. It may have played a part.
But it's not as simple as you think.
/5 Federal Judges are often on an axis outside of left-right. It's about judicial discretion vs. Congressional limits. Many federal judges always despised the Sentencing Guidelines, because it limits what they see as their proper absolute discretion to choose a sentence.
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019/6 That's not exactly a "liberal" or "conservative" position. So, for instance, Judge Ellis has been a strong critic of mandatory minimum drug and gun sentences, which are the reason he CAN'T give a convicted drug dealer a break like he gave Manafort.https://t.co/MMKlrsamI6
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019/7 That's why you'll see some judges who would not by any stretch of the imagination be called "liberal" give oddly low sentences sometimes - and sometimes even defy the mandatory minimums (only to get overturned on appeal). They think it should be their decision, not Congress.
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019/8 So, though it's tempting to see "the fix was in!", and I can never exclude some sort of political bias had a role, I think you'll find most federal criminal practitioners won't leap to that conclusion.
— PresidentialHarassHat (@Popehat) March 8, 2019Public defenders also weighed in
Public defender Scott Hechinger tweeted a thread of prison sentences longer than Manafort's for crimes including "a woman who voted while on probation without knowing she wasn’t allowed to," who was sentenced to five years in prison.
He also pointed out, however, that he was not advocating for harsher sentences — even for Manafort.
"I am not making the argument for *harsher sentences for anyone including Manafort,*" he tweeted. "I am simply pointing out the outrageous disparity between his treatment and others, disproportionately poor & people of color."
Calling out sentencing disparities
Others were less coy about calling out sentencing disparities.
In federal cases, mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes — including drug, pornography, and gun convictions — have been laid out by Congress, not judges.
"There are non-wealthy minorities who went to jail for drug crimes who are screaming right now about how light of a sentence Manafort got ..." national-security lawyer Bradley P. Moss, tweeted.
"Go read the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for drug offenders and tell me with a straight face being a rich, white male engaging in tax fraud and shady illegal lobbying for violent dictators who slaughter dissidents means you’ll face equivalent punishment in the courts," he continued in a second tweet.
Moss was not the only one to make that point.
Republican strategist Rick Wilson tweeted, "Try being a black kid with 1.00001 ounces of marijuana an not getting the mandatory minimum."
Former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and current University of Michigan Law School professor, Barb McQuade also weighed in.
"Judge Ellis calls #Manafort‘s guidelines range 'quite high,'" she tweeted. "The guidelines are based on data from other cases, and are high here only because the conduct was so egregious. Why are the guidelines considered too high only when the defendant is wealthy and powerful?"
"Have faith, folks."
Joyce Vance, former US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama appointed by former President Barack Obama, called for people to "have faith" in the justice system.
"Have faith, folks," the current University of Alabama School of Law professor tweeted. "As a prosecutor, I didn’t like every ruling I got from a judge. It’s easy to be disappointed in the system when something like this happens. But the rule of law is still strong and we will get justice."
"Manafort was, of course, not charged with collusion," Vance continued. "This is the equivalent of cutting a drug trafficker a break and sentencing lightly because he didn’t commit murder."
Next Story
I spent $2,000 for 7 nights in a 179-square-foot room on one of the world's largest cruise ships. Take a look inside my cabin.
Saudi Arabia wants China to help fund its struggling $500 billion Neom megaproject. Investors may not be too excited.
One of the world's only 5-star airlines seems to be considering asking business-class passengers to bring their own cutlery
From terrace to table: 8 Edible plants you can grow in your home
India fourth largest military spender globally in 2023: SIPRI report
New study forecasts high chance of record-breaking heat and humidity in India in the coming months
Gold plunges ₹1,450 to ₹72,200, silver prices dive by ₹2,300
Strong domestic demand supporting India's growth: Morgan Stanley
