Justice vs. Process: The Case Of The Final, Mandatory, Unjust Sentence

African American in Prison

A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, fifteen judges in all, heard arguments this week  regarding whether they have the power to do anything about Raymond Surratt Jr.’s mandatory life sentence, which just about everybody—-the sentencing judge, Surratt’s defense lawyers and government prosecutors—agrees is unjust.

Until the Surratt case, no federal appellate court has faced the question of  whether a court it has a route to correcting a mistake of its own making when the error is as severe as a mandatory life sentence. The North Carolina father of two is incarcerated at a federal facility in Virginia for a 2005 cocaine conviction. If Surratt were sentenced today, he would face a mandatory minimum penalty of only ten years in prison. If he had been sentenced under current laws in 2005 rather than the laws then in effect, he would be out of jail by now.

Surratt pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine in western North Carolina. The judge said he had no choice under sentencing guidelines other than  to give him a mandatory life sentence because of Surratt’s earlier drug convictions. The judge called the penalty “undeserved and unjust.”

The conviction and sentence were upheld after Surratt’s  appeals. Now he has no appeals left. But in 2011, the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina, overruled past practice, meaning that it held that prior convictions as in Surratt’s case should not trigger a mandatory life term.

Now, I know that non-lawyers react to this by thinking, “So what’s the problem? Let him out!” That’s in line with the reaction they have when they hear about a defense lawyer who knows his mad-dog killer defendant is guilty of a heinous, bloody crime (“So tell the judge!”). However, the law can’t be changed on the fly, and the fact that a result may be obviously wrong doesn’t change the importance of addressing it within existing procedures, rules and laws. In this case, no more appeals means no more appeals.

The Surratt case involves the important judicial principle of finality. Prof. Steven H. Goldblatt, who runs Georgetown Law Center’s  appellate litigation clinic, told the court that finality is of vital importance to the legal system. Agreeing, a majority of the Fourth Circuit panel said last year that…

“Although one might find it tempting to put finality concerns aside for the sake of self-designed notions of fairness, finality provides closure to victims and the defendant: it assures the victim that his assailant will be punished, while it directs the defendant to move on with his life.”

As part of a plea deal, Surratt waived his right to appeal and acknowledged that he faced the possibility of a mandatory life sentence if he did not fully cooperate with the government. But at sentencing, prosecutors said Surratt’s cooperation efforts were “halfhearted” and had not assisted their investigation, so the deal was off.

The Surratt case is a perfect embodiment of the maxim that “hard cases make bad law.”  Allowing Surratt to challenge his sentence would “thwart almost every one of the careful limits that Congress placed on post-conviction challenges to a federal prisoner’s sentence,” according to the majority opinion written in July by Judge G. Steven Agee. In other words, even if addressing the injustice in Surratt’s case is fair and just, it will inevitably be used as a precedent to undermine process requirements that are crucial and necessary to keep the justice system manageable. In the hearing before the full 4th Circuit, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III specifically cited the “hard case-bad law” principle. He said he was sympathetic to Surratt’s plight,  but worried about the consequences if inmates are allowed to repeatedly challenge their sentences retroactively any time the sentencing rules change. “I’ve never seen something as open ended as this,” he said. “We’re going to be swamped, literally swamped.”

Congress has limited legal reviews of convictions in the interests of finality. In 1996, Congress passed new limits on challenges from federal inmates, and President Bill Clinton signed those limits into law. Now prisoners can try to have judges reconsider their cases only in rare situations, such as when new evidence is discovered or when a change in a law means the offense in question is no longer a crime. Surratt’s problem, everyone agrees, was not included as an exception to finality.

This is an ethics conflict placing fairness to one individual in conflict with the government’s duties of responsibility, consistency and process. It calls for a utilitarian analysis: a single injustice to one inmate may be a legitimate price to maintain the principle of finality and to avoid creating a precedent that will do long-term harm to the system.

The way a “hard case” should be handled so that it does not create a disrupting precedent is to use the Founders’ remedy, enshrined in the Constitution. Section II states:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

President Obama has lagged behind all of his predecessors in granting pardons until very recently. In a mad dash to enhance his “legacy,” Obama has invited thousands of jailed drug offenders and other convicts to seek early release,  urging lawyers across the country to assist them. Because the Obama administration was already receiving record numbers of applications for commutation of sentences before that  invitation, however, this sudden interest in his previously neglected power has led to a clogged process and a hopeless backlog.  Reuters reports that “more than 8,000 cases out of more than 44,000 federal inmates who applied have yet to make it to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for review. In addition, there are “about 9,000 cases that are still pending review” at Justice.

Surratt’s case is one that, in a properly monitored and administered pardon system, would rise to the top of the pile. Not only is there a clear injustice, any solution to it other than a pardon will have destructive consequences, because it would create a damaging precedent. The President could read the article about Surratt in the Washington Post, or be briefed on it by an aide, and pardon Surratt in about ten minutes, solving the problem.

He won’t, of course. Since he won’t, and without the use of the pardon power which was the Founders’ favored tool to cut such Gordian knots, I think the better of two ethically imperfect options is to let Surratt stay in prison.


Facts: Gloucester Times, Washington Post

18 thoughts on “Justice vs. Process: The Case Of The Final, Mandatory, Unjust Sentence

  1. “But at sentencing, prosecutors said Surratt’s cooperation efforts were “halfhearted” and had not assisted their investigation, so the deal was off.”

    It doesn’t strike me that the prosecutors needed to make this argument. But if they didn’t and chose to anyway, I think they don’t get to join the protest as you identify here:

    “which just about everybody—-the sentencing judge, Surratt’s defense lawyers and government prosecutors—agrees is unjust.”

      • So then after that gate is passed through and the judge doesn’t accept the plea deal or wasn’t prepared to do so, I’d think you can take that guy off the list of people who get to protest the unjustness of this situation…

        • Why? If he, apparently legitimately at the time, concludes that the sentencing guidelines give him no choice, why do you doubt his protests, even when he did the original sentencing, that it is unjust and unfair? Such statements from judges against mandatory minimums were commonplace. That’s the flip side of the “Affluenza” flap.

  2. If he was just an addicted user I can see where a strong argument could be made to find a way to release him. But as you state, he had prior convictions and was found guilty for the distribution of a large amount to cocaine. These people contribute to the commitment of felonies such as burglary and assault. I say, let him rot in prison!

  3. An additional factor at play here is that, since the late 1980s, there is no parole for any federal life sentence, unlike many of the life sentences (as opposed to “life without parole” sentences) imposed in the states, which average less than 20 years actually served. So, Mr. Surratt can’t even serve a portion of his sentence “outside.”
    I also couldn’t help wondering if Mr. Surratt is related to Mary Surratt, whom many believe also got a raw deal from the federal justice system.

    • Somehow I doubt this. Raymond Surratt Jr. is black and Mary Surratt and her husband were confederate sympathizers whose boarding house was used to plot Lincoln’s assassination. I think Mary Surratt’s ancestors would be horrified at the suggestion.

  4. Please can we stop calling it a “Justice” system? It’s a law system. A method ostensibly to administer Justice, but as that’s impractical, it’s a crude approximation that is often anything but “Just”.

    The trouble is that no-one’s found anything better – though a law system is far too easily perverted. It can be good, but often is not.

  5. The fix for this is simple, if painful to the taxpayer – enshrine the right to appeal as inalienable for any sentence of over five years years (either for multiple or discreet convictions), and as such not subject to waiver.

    This sort of thing happens all too often, and we know from bitter experience that prosecutors cannot be trusted to deal fairly with defendants. They have entirely too much motivation to obtain the harshest possible penalties and too few constraints on their power. I know this is a broad brush, but unfortunately, it needs to be.

  6. Why is our law so unfair..why not do the right thing and free the man? Does he not have a family? Soes he not have kids why not give him a second chance at life?

  7. When you have a deal half hearted means he completed what he was to do just not good enough who decides how good he kept his obligation was told he wasn’t going to get more then 160 months rail roaded and not understanding they took pleasure in taking a mans life who non violent wasting tax payers dollars wouldn’t house arrest or paying for probation suit the people it cost more to keep a non violent offender in prison then to send him to college he is able to work pay fees for a ankle montering device he can be set free to his family pay for probation and cost we the people less money really the ego of the government is heartless where is the justice child monsters do less time than him murders go Free before him you think this is just I don’t think we the people approve of such cruel sentence to just throw him away. I am ashamed at some of you don’t see the injustice our lady scales are in a battles level match it is not balanced nor fair this man has did more then enough time for his crime on my tax dollar time and our need. Set this man free . Where is honor . I like to know and the own judge said this is. Cruel overturn how hard is to correct this and admit this is a unfair sentence and that raises a question shouldn’t he have unfair sentence case. Under such acts and why would we keep him in life . Justice for this man is nesscary. Free him to probation prisons were to correct reform I think he has been locked up so long he probably wouldn’t even walk across the street wrong really . I think setting him free under supervision is best for we the people of United States and saves our government cost . Mr Surratt we the people want you free you are being over punished let me Apoglize for our system of shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.