Posted on 11/18/2004 3:23:03 PM PST by Former Military Chick
"To sentence Mr. Angelos to prison for essentially the rest of his life is unjust, cruel and even irrational," U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said.
That said, however, Cassell said he had no choice but to follow the statutes and sentence 25-year-old Weldon Angelos to prison for more than half a century. But in doing so, he called on President Bush to commute Angelos' sentence to one more in line with his crime. The judge suggested 18 years and asked Congress to revisit the mandatory-minimum laws that required the term.
The sentence was handed down in front of a full courtroom of Angelos' family and friends, as well as legal observers, many of whom expected Cassell to declare unconstitutional the mandatory-minimum sentencing laws that governed Angelos' sentence.
Angelos' loved ones, including his wife and two young sons, were in tears upon hearing Cassell's decision. Defense attorney Jerome Mooney also expressed disappointment.
"We just saw the effect of a Congress concerned about their seats and re-election instead of justice," Mooney said, saying the harsh sentencing laws prove legislators are more concerned with being viewed as tough on crime rather than the imposition of fair punishments on criminal offenders.
To mandate a term that would keep the young father behind bars until he is 80 years old, Mooney said, is "unjust, and Congress should be ashamed of themselves."
Angelos, the founder of the Utah-based rap music label Extravagant Records, initially faced at least a 61 1/2-year sentence for the 16 criminal counts of which he was convicted in December. The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment.
Cassell imposed just one day for the additional 13 drug, firearm and money-laundering charges.
The case has garnered the attention of legal experts across the country, who have been following Cassell's moves since June, when he declared the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional in the case of a Utah man convicted of child pornography. That ruling came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that called the constitutionality of the guidelines into question.
Mooney, joined by 29 former legal officials from across the nation, had asked Cassell to find that the onerous mandatory-minimum term in the Angelos case constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defense also argued the firearm statute is not applied equally to all criminal defendants, a violation of Angelos' equal-protection rights.
And although Cassell appeared to agree with the defense on nearly every point, the judge, in a lengthy opinion released immediately following Tuesday's hearing, said his analysis failed to meet the legal threshold required to find a statute unconstitutional. Thus, he said, he was required to impose the "Draconian" prison sentence.
"Our constitutional system of government requires the court to follow the law, not its own personal views about what the law ought to be," the judge wrote.
Federal prosecutors have maintained throughout the case that Cassell had no choice but to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Lund argued Tuesday that lawmakers passed the firearms statute — which requires a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for the first charge and a 25-year term for each count thereafter — with the clear intent to address the growing problem of mixing drugs and firearms.
Attorney Jerome Mooney talks to the media after his client Weldon Angelos was sentenced to prison, calling the virtually lifelong term unjust.
"Drugs and gun violence are an endemic problem in this country," Lund said. "There's a huge societal impact."
Angelos' sentence simply reinforces the message Congress intended and will serve as an important deterrent, Lund said.
"People who engage in armed violent crime or armed drug dealing are going to face very serious consequences," he said.
Critics of the legal mandate, however, question the fairness of a method that doesn't allow judges to tailor a sentence to fit a particular crime or criminal defendant.
"Judicial discretion has always been the heart and soul of the American justice system," said Monica Pratt, of the Washington D.C.-based organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Margaret Plane, staff attorney for the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed.
"That's why this case is such a great example," Plane said. "(Mandatory-minimum) laws apply without regard to the offense type, without regard to the particular offender. It's really kind of a one-size-fits-all approach, and that's not how our justice system should necessarily work."
Despite his ultimate finding, University of Utah law professor Erik Luna commended Cassell for addressing the matter at all.
"Judge Cassell did a very brave thing in even raising the issue," said Luna, an outspoken critic of federal sentencing laws. "We need to take this to the next level, which is to talk to the politicians. . . . I hope and pray some day that sanity will come back to the system."
---------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: awelling@desnews.com
>> "Judge Cassell did a very brave thing in even raising the issue," said Luna, an outspoken critic of federal sentencing laws.
Note for future reference: Judge Paul Cassell is a disgrace and is TOTALLY UNFIT for further or higher appointments to the bench!
“the founder of the Utah-based rap music label Extravagant Records”
Pfaugh, he ought to be executed for that alone.
“To mandate a term that would keep the young father behind bars until he is 80 years old, Mooney said, is "unjust, and Congress should be ashamed of themselves”
Young father? How about “young drug-pushing thug?” A healthy society would find a tall tree and a short rope and put this filth out of our misery.
“a more reasonable punishment.”
A reasonable punishment for this scumbag is to hang him by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead.
The teacher participates in a system, compulsory education, that initiates force.
Unlike the the drug seller. I rate him as possibly ethically superior to the teacher, assuming he confines his sales to reasonably adult-like people.
I appreciate your willingness to have an open discussion on the matter.
Young father? How about “young drug-pushing thug?” A healthy society would find a tall tree and a short rope and put this filth out of our misery.
A reasonable punishment for this scumbag is to hang him by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead.
That's some pretty heavy smack you're pushing. Ever wished you could've toned it down a little? 'Cause my skunk humpin' troll alert keeps going off everytime I read your post. Perhaps a better use of your musk gland would be to go back to your friends at DU and go tail-up on them.
"Perhaps a better use of your musk gland would be to go back to your friends at DU and go tail-up on them."
You'd be wise to click on a user name and see how long a person's been here before you start that crap.
Yeah, I advocate the death penalty for smuggling and pushing drugs.
I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is essentially, I can live with the laws, to the extent that I know YOU or I wouldn't break those laws, hence not be subjected to punishment under them.
In other words, I don't oppose laws that punish people for what they do, if what they do is illegal. Likewise, if you don't break them, you shouldn't have to worry about them. That is the whole basis of the recent RKBA argument; if the current laws are enforced, the criminals would be locked up; as opposed to more restrictive laws against legal gun owners needing to be introduced.
If these were state charges in a three strikes state, wouldn't he also be gone for life?
ABRAMS: What‘s wrong with this scenario? A Utah federal judge sentences a man convicted of beating an elderly woman to death with a log to a 22-year term for aggravated second-degree murder, OK. Then two hours later, the same judge sentences a man convicted of selling marijuana while having a gun in his holster on his ankle to 55 years and a day in prison, which given there‘s no parole in the federal prison, effectively amounts to a life sentence for this man, Weldon Angelos, a 25-year-old rap music producer and founder of Extravagant Records. Weldon is married, two young sons. While he‘s a first-time drug offender, a police informer testified Weldon carried a gun during two marijuana sales. Police found other guns in Weldon‘s apartment when he was arrested.
The judge ruled the 55-year sentence is required by federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for three accounts of selling drugs while carrying a weapon. Judge Paul Cassell tacked one day to his sentence for the other 13 counts. And while protesters were demonstrating outside of court against mandatory minimums, Judge Cassell filed a blistering opinion saying in part to sentence Mr. Angelos to prison for essentially the rest of his life is unjust, cruel and even irrational.
Adding 55 years on top of a sentence for drug dealing is far beyond the roughly two-year sentence the United States Sentencing Commission believes is appropriate. Judge Cassell also urged President Bush to commute Angelos‘ sentence to 18 years, a sentence at least nine members of the jury said they would support, at least on the average. And he called on Congress to set aside the law the he said forced him to impose the 55-year sentence.
“My Take”—this is prosecutors using a technicality. My regular viewers know I am regularly sticking it to defense attorneys for using technicalities and deception to try to help their guilty clients. And it‘s not often I accuse prosecutors of doing the same. But that‘s what happened here. After Angelos refused a plea deal that would have put him away for 15 years, the prosecutors did more than throw the book at him. They threw the whole bookcase. And as the judge pointed out in his opinion, the people who created the federal sentencing guidelines never envisioned this.
Under the guidelines, he would have gotten an additional two years for having a gun, not an additional 50. Remember, he never brandished the gun. And let‘s be clear, I‘m not excusing Angelos. He should serve time, but for example, if he had been tried in Utah state court instead of federal court, he would have received something like five to seven years.
Jerome Mooney is Weldon Angelos‘ attorney and Bill Sullivan is a former federal prosecutor who thinks the sentence is appropriate. All right. Ordinarily, I would go to Jerome first, but Bill, lay out why you think I‘m wrong on this one.
BILL SULLIVAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Dan, it‘s a sad case, make no mistake, but here‘s the simple fact. The defendant was convicted of 16 counts. He was charged with six counts of 924 ©. As you know, 924 © is a commission of a narcotics offense while armed. He was acquitted of three of those counts and he stands convicted of the other three. The basic point here is that 924 © is, like it or not, a recidivist statue.
In Deal v. U.S. 1993 Supreme Court decision, a recidivist statute can‘t stand whether or not those acts are part of the same indictment or whether or not the defendant commits a crime, serves his sentence, and comes out and commits another crime. The prosecution chose to invoke 924 © because of the repeated sales undertaken by this defendant.
ABRAMS: Wait...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: We‘re talking about one time though. Remember, we‘re not talking about a guy who has been busted time and time again.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: We‘re talking about a guy who is getting busted once.
SULLIVAN: Dan, I understand, but read Deal v. U.S. Supreme Court. Doesn‘t matter if he‘s busted once or if he commits three offenses within the same contours of an indictment within three or four days. That‘s a recidivist according to the law. Now my point is this is a sad case. The prosecution could have exercised discretion.
ABRAMS: Yes, they could have.
SULLIVAN: They were plea negotiations that went forth.
(CROSSTALK)
SULLIVAN: I was not privy...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: They got angry. They got...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: He didn‘t agree to our deal and therefore, we‘re going to go after him like crazy. I think that prosecutors should be above that. I think...
SULLIVAN: Dan, I agree. I don‘t know the circumstances of this case.
However, the real thrust here what has to be changed...
ABRAMS: All right.
SULLIVAN: ... if something has to be changed is the legislation.
ABRAMS: All right.
SULLIVAN: That statue is on the books.
ABRAMS: Jerome Mooney, take it over.
JEROME MOONEY, WELDON ANGELOS‘ ATTORNEY: I certainly agree that the legislation needs to be changed. A recidivist statue ought to be a statue that punishes people for the behavior that they engaged in, then got caught, and have the opportunity to then reflect on it and not do it again. That‘s what we should be doing with recidivist statutes, not punish seriatim offenses. All of these offenses could have happened on the same day and we would have been looking at the same horrendous...
ABRAMS: Mr. Mooney, do you agree with the judge‘s assessment that his hands were tied?
MOONEY: I don‘t think so. I think that Judge Cassell—we asked Judge Cassell to hold the sentence unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment grounds and equal protection grounds. In his opinion, he gets right up to the point—he goes through all of...
ABRAMS: Right.
MOONEY: ... tests, he gets right to the line where he is ready to step over the line and I guess figures his ankles were tied at that point. He can‘t make that last step. I think he could have made that last step.
ABRAMS: Yes, you know, I think you‘re going to have a tough time on appeal here too, which I‘m sure you know, that it‘s going to be an uphill matter when it comes to this law because it seems the court has ruled it. Let me—as a practical matter, let me be clear here. All right. Let‘s put up some of the numbers.
This is Angelos‘ sentence, all right, 738 months. Remember, he was selling pot. A kingpin of a major drug trafficking ring where death resulted 293 months. Aircraft hijacker: 293 months. Second-degree murderer: 168 months. Kidnapper: 151 months. Rapist of a 10-year-old child: 135 months. A rapist: 87 months.
These are the numbers the judge put in his opinion. Bill, how do you justify this?
SULLIVAN: Here‘s the simple fact. 924 ©, the commission of a drug trafficking offense while armed. And this stems from the assassinations, believe it or not, of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King through the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Crime Control Act of 1970 where legislatively it was determined, as you know, that drugs and guns go together, too frequently in our urban centers, and they are a violent, volatile combination.
ABRAMS: That‘s right. And so do the sentencing guidelines and they upped it two years they said he committed something—you add a gun to it. We‘re going to up it by two years...
SULLIVAN: Absolutely.
ABRAMS: ... not by 50 years.
SULLIVAN: But the prosecutors in this case exercised their discretion. They had six independent counts of Mr. Angelos selling narcotics admittedly marijuana in this case. Again, they could have used some discretion there, but the fact remains six times he was selling with a gun. Guns were found not only in his apartment, but in his girlfriend‘s apartment.
They had the discretion and they brought six counts. The judge threw out three of them. We still have three. What does the law say—first offense, Dan, five years. That‘s reasonable. You do it again, it‘s 25 and it‘s got to be consecutive. You do it again it‘s another 25. That‘s the law. It‘s an unhappy law. It‘s an unfortunate law...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It‘s all part of the same...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It‘s an obscene law.
ABRAMS: Let‘s be clear. It‘s all part of the same event here. We talk about—again and again, we‘re talking about saying, Mr. Mooney, the reason I get so upset about this is because I do give it to defense attorneys in most of these cases because I generally trust prosecutors. And I‘ve said in some instances, I think they go for the death penalty way too often in some of these cases, even though I support the death penalty.
But the bottom line is when I feel like the prosecutors are crossing the line, it makes me very nervous because on this program, I do put so much faith in the prosecutors in the cases that they handle. You get the final word.
MOONEY: And there‘s a huge difficulty in maintaining that posture if courts are not given the power to be able to hold the prosecutors to the line. The courts are giving up the power more and more. Congress is taking it away. Congress is giving it to the executive and the Supreme Court has not seen fit to step in and say we‘ve gone too far.
ABRAMS: Yes.
MOONEY: And that‘s a real problem...
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to wrap it up...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: This is travesty injustice in this case.
SULLIVAN: Well the Ashcroft memorandum, Dan, encourages prosecutors to charge the most sustainable serious offense...
(CROSSTALK)
SULLIVAN: That‘s what these prosecutors were doing here...
(CROSSTALK)
MOONEY: And it says charge two 924 © charges...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: They could have charged the maximum without sort of sneaking in using this other statue to pursue this case and still Mr. Angelos would be serving some serious time and not make it so ridiculously disproportionate so that you‘ve got a murderer who is getting 22 years and this guy is getting 50.
I‘ve got to wrap it up. Jerome Mooney, Bill Sullivan good to see you again.
SULLIVAN: Thanks.
MOONEY: Thank you.
ABRAMS: Thanks for coming on. Appreciate it.
"and not make it so ridiculously disproportionate so that you‘ve got a murderer who is getting 22 years and this guy is getting 50."
The problem there is letting murderers off with less than death.
What stolen gun?
From post 32: "Other charges included possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm while drug trafficking and three separate counts of money laundering. "
Quoting the article:
Angelos, the founder of the Utah-based rap music label Extravagant Records, initially faced at least a 61 1/2-year sentence for the 16 criminal counts of which he was convicted in December. The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment.
Cassell imposed just one day for the additional 13 drug, firearm and money-laundering charges.
Sounds like the judge sentenced less than one day in prison for the stolen firearm - the only real crime committed by the defendant.
That's pretty much my view, also.
I would punish severely for distributing drugs to children, but even that would define "child" as someone twelve or under. The free ride that teenagers get today is part of the problem. I believe that the Columbine killers had been caught stealing an automobile about six months prior to their killing spree. There is no way they should have been attending a public school.
I am very against the mandatory minimum laws. While I am a strong law and order type, I think that our system works best when there is discretion for judges. Yes, justice can and does get abused at times, but there I'd still rather have it in the hands of judge and jury then strictly legislators.
with a 55 year sentence he will probably do about 18. the simple fact is that sentences are harsh because the prison system is so overcrowded that prisoners are released after serving about 1/3 of their sentences. its a push-pull kind of a problem. we need the harsh sentences to have any reasonable punishment for these offenders. now, there is the possibility that the dhimicrats could nominate a hip hop star and the MSM could get him elected our next President. then this perp could get a pardon and go on with his career.
Society will not miss him. Good riddance.
John
Exactly! If judges enforced the law the first time they got arrested there may not have been a third time.
Judges blaming congress. How stoopid.
John
"with a 55 year sentence he will probably do about 18."
In the federal prison system there is no parole. He could earn some good time but will have to do a minimum of 85% of his sentence before he'll be eligible for release. You're thinking about state prisons and those are all over the place when it comes to calculating parole eligibility dates and all of the various early release programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.