The introduction of federal sentencing guidelines in 1987 radically changed the nature of criminal defense practice in United States District Courts by effectively shifting most sentencing discretion to the Executive Branch. Instead of District Judges, who are appointed for life, these (mostly) young and politically ambitious prosecutors, driven by Department of Justice charging decisions, control the much of the process.

Walk into any federal courthouse today and the sweeping changes that have transformed criminal justice become evident just as soon as the judge begins a sentencing.

The scene may look familiar -- a stern jurist peering down from the high bench at a dejected defendant -- but the language is likely to resemble that used by U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent in Galveston, Texas, when he sentenced 24-year-old Martin Jarvis Jackson for illegal firearms possession last year.

"The court finds that the base offense level is 20," the judge began. "Pursuant to Guideline .........

Although we were crafting arguments for Probation and shorter sentences before the sentencing guidelines, it is unfortunate that most judges have never sentenced in other than a mandatory guidelines environment. Now that it has been three years since the Supreme Court, in the Booker and Fanfan cases, has held that these guidelines are advisory - and not mandatory - numerous opportunities again exist for sentence mitigation, both through 3553(a) parameters and otherwise. Even with the recent clarifications in the Gall and Kimbrough cases, if not provided any alternative, too many judges still default to a straight guideline analysis, with the full cooperation of the U.S. Attorney's Office and Probation. We change that analysis, and provide counsel and the court with firm footing on which to sentence the individual before them - not just take the easy and comfortable way out by simply doing the math and filling out the "score sheet." This "justice by the numbers" approach is most often not beneficial to the person being sentenced. In fact, whether it's the sentencing court, the government, or even Probation, once you start with the guidelines, the defendant has been prejudiced. So, . . . if you are on the defense side, why would you too merely capitulate and fall in line with those who are not?

Necessary arguments, in our view, should always include the constitutional doctrine of the "least restrictive alternative" in sentencing, which has been tragically displaced in the thinking of many practitioners with the "sufficient but not greater than necessary" language of 3553(a). While that language is very important to us, it has all too often been euphemistically recast as the "parsimony clause" as if it had no constitutional footing.

Our ultimate goal is to use whatever arguments, including creative or edgy ones -- whatever is available for a given set of facts, with a goal of achieving a statutory sentence. While the federal sentencing guidelines certainly are one factor, they are just one of many listed in Section 3553(a), and not the primary one. If Congress had intended consideration of the guidelines to be paramount, they would have written different language into the statute telling us so. Quite simply, what we have is a list of factors, including the guidelines - and nothing that makes them "special" in any way at all.

Our practice is limited to advice on matters relating to plea negotiation, federal sentencing, post-conviction remedies and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) issues. Although we are rarely hired before a guilty plea or verdict, we are always happy to have the opportunity to come into a case as early as possible - whenever that might be! We often are chosen to participate, along with existing local counsel, and use the Firm's experience to craft arguments that result in obtaining the best result for our clients -- by assisting the court in its sentencing decisions.

The Firm's approach to sentencing is driven by years of research and practical application of sentencing doctrine in Federal Courts. From this experience, the Firm brings its sentencing partners perspective, insight and the tactical advantages that come with a national practice.

Our experienced practitioners fill the need for proficiency in the many issues surrounding federal sentencing, post-conviction matters and corrections issues - even for those practitioners who appear in the federal courts every day and regularly try cases. Please review this web site to learn more about the services available to counsel, defendants, inmates and their loved ones.