By Glenna HallWhen I first heard this story back in December, it nearly broke my heart:
Jason Pepper, a former meth addict and drug dealer from the heartland, says he got lucky when he was finally arrested. A sympathetic judge gave him a fraction of the prison time he could have received and, more importantly, sent him to a place where he got extensive drug treatment.
Then his luck ran out, when appeals courts said his sentence was too lenient. Even though all acknowledged that he had turned his life around, he was sent back to prison. (Washington Post, March 13, 2011)
Here is the description of Mr. Pepper's situation from his brief to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Jason Pepper pled guilty to a federal drug conspiracy charge for which he was sentenced in 2004 and again in 2006 to a term of 24 months of imprisonment. After receiving drug treatment in prison and completing his term of imprisonment, Pepper attended college full time, achieved top grades, held a steady job, was promoted, married, and supported a family. The government appealed each sentence. The Eighth Circuit reversed each sentence on a different ground, and found it "just" to assign the case to a new judge. Notwithstanding the undisputed evidence that Pepper was rehabilitated and living a productive life, the new judge increased Pepper's term of imprisonment from 24 to 65 months, and -- nearly four years after completing the original term -- Pepper returned to the Bureau of Prisons to serve an additional 41 months.
In the federal system and in many states, including Washington, judicial discretion in sentencing has been severely limited by sentencing guidelines. Known in my state as "mandatory guidelines" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), these rules were enacted in an attempt to make sentences consistent and not subject to judges' bias or soft-heartedness.
The crux of the horrible situation Jason Pepper found himself in was that judges, including those in the federal system, can, in theory, deviate from the guidelines under "exceptional" circumstances. (In Washington, upward deviations have been upheld significantly more often than downward deviations.) Mr. Pepper's sentencing judge, believing among other things that Mr. Pepper was a good candidate for rehabilitation, deviated significantly from the sentencing range and gave him a much lower sentence than the federal guidelines would have prescribed. But the exceptions were narrowly defined, and not all of the judge's reasons turned out to be allowable.
Mr. Pepper served his term and began a significant and remarkable rehabilitation. Nevertheless, after the government won its appeal of the "leniency" of his sentence, he was brought back to court for resentencing. After several more appeals, he was eventually given a prison term almost three times the original sentence, and he was sent back to prison to serve the remaining time.
One legal blog headlined this story "Jason Pepper Must Have Run Over the Eighth Circuit's Dog."
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court took Jason Pepper's case. I first heard the story on the radio, right before oral argument to the Court. I was pretty sure, not just because of the current makeup of the Court but also because of the consistency of state and federal adherence to sentencing guidelines, that Mr. Pepper would end up having to serve out the rest of his 65-month sentence.