So who does a third-party Rule 35(b) work for? A wife bailing out her husband, a father bailing out his son, brother helping brother… that kind of thing. Most important, the prisoner had better be absolutely sure that the person providing the assistance is not getting paid anything for it. In other words, anyone planning on getting a third-party Rule 35(b) would want to be sure that he or she was personally involved in getting the person to step forward, and that the inmate can easily show that the Government wouldn’t have gotten the help without him or her. The courts that approve them generally require that (1) the inmate play some role in instigating, requesting, providing, or directing the assistance (2) the government would not have received the assistance but for the inmate’s participation (3) the assistance is rendered for free and (4) no other circumstances weigh against rewarding the assistance. Some courts ban third-party Rule 35(b)s altogether, but the trend is to not turn down a chance for the Feds to enforce the law. The sad fact is that only a very few courts have granted third-party Rule 35(b) motions, and only when stringent standards are applied. A real win-win! A bad guy’s off the street, the informant makes some money, and the inmate gets a sentence cut. Attorney to credit their information to the inmate, who gets a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction. The people with the information ask the U.S. The concept is simple: the inmate pays someone to arrange a third party on the street to come up with some good confidential information that helps the Feds bag some bad guys. In the last decade, inmate scuttlebutt has invented a way around that: third-party Rule 35(b)s. After all, the inmate’s locked up, and there are not a lot of opportunities to come up with the kind of first-hand dirt that case agents and U.S. The biggest hurdle for a prisoner seeking a Rule 35(b) sentence reduction is to have some juicy information to trade. But it works and works well: an average of 1,800 inmates a year received sentence reductions under Rule 35(b) between 20, with the average prisoner getting a 37% sentence cut. The Rule 35(b) motion is discretionary on the government’s part, and the sentencing court does not have to grant it. For them, there’s Rule 35(b).įederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) lets the government file a motion asking that a prisoner’s sentence be cut for post-sentencing cooperation. Most people who do this jump aboard the train early, but a few go through sentencing without cooperating, only to regret their decision when they walk through the prison doors. We’re down with that: a defendant’s got to do what a defendant’s got to do. It’s a fairly well known fact that a substantial minority of federal prisoners trade information for lower sentences. But there are exceptions, and yesterday, we came across one. We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.Īnyone reading what we put out often enough might get the sense that we’re no fans of long prison sentences, or – in many cases – of any prison sentences at all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |