NJ AG tells prosecutors collateral consequences may determine which marijuana violations to pursue

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal recently issued new Guidance reminding municipal prosecutors that they cannot categorically refuse to prosecute marijuana cases while the Legislature is considering proposals relating to decriminalization.  That said, the guidance reminds prosecutors that they have considerable discretion when deciding which maijuana cases to pursue.  While this advice is fairly standard stuff, the second half of the guidance document is a fascinating glimpse into prosecutorial decision-making as it relates to collateral consequences.  It follows a growing scholarly and legal consensus calling for opening the “black box” that is the prosecutorial mindset. For too long, the thought-processes behind prosecutorial decisions have eluded the public eye.

In essence, the guidance advises that the decision whether or not to bring charges may depend upon a defendant’s exposure to severe collateral consequences if convicted. Recognizing that prosecutors should consider collateral consequences brings their obligations closer to those imposed on defense attorneys by the Supreme Court eight years ago in Padilla v. Kentucky. Padilla required defense attorneys to know the immigration consequences faced by their clients or risk being labeled constitutionally ineffective. Many defense attorneys, public defenders, and legal aid organizations have devoted substantial effort to ensuring their clients know about housing, employment, educational, and other consequences that might attach to a conviction.

But any public defender can tell you that reliance on overburdened defense and legal aid attorneys to warn defendants and educate prosecutors about collateral consequences is bound to frustrate the goal of increasing systemic literacy.  The value of the new AG guidance is in placing a burden on prosecutors to discover and take into account the effect of collateral consequences in particular cases in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Read more

Prisoners fighting California fires denied licenses after release

Nick Sibilla, a legislative analyst at the Institute for Justice, has published this fine op ed piece in today’s USA Today, describing how the 2,000 state prisoners currently engaged in fighting the largest fire in California history, are barred from obtaining the necessary EMT license that would enable them to continue this work after their release.  It contains, inter alia, a description of the two bills currently pending in the California legislature that would end what Nick describes as a “bitterly ironic” situation, where prisoners gain valuable training in certain vocations that they cannot use after their release.  The piece seems particularly relevant, in light of the amazing work being done on occupational licensing reform across the country, much of it inspired by the Institute for Justice’s Model Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act.   See, e.g. New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee.  We hope California will soon join this group of enlightened jurisdictions, and that other states will follow in the coming year.

Despite fighting California’s largest fires, inmates are denied licenses they need to become firefighters after they get out.

by Nick Sibilla, USA Today, August 20, 2018

As California struggles to contain the largest fire in state history, more than 2,000 inmates have volunteered to fight the flames. Offering just $1 an hour, the state has long  encouraged low-level prisoners to risk their lives and serve alongside professional firefighters, who earn nearly $74,000 a year on average. Firefighting, along with less life-threatening trades like plumbing, welding, and cosmetology, is one of several vocational training programs offered to prisoners by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

But in a bitterly ironic twist, once inmates leave prison, they often can’t work as firefighters, despite their frontline experience. In California, nearly all counties require firefighters to become licensed emergency medical technician (EMTs) — a credential that can be denied to almost anyone with a criminal record.

Read more

Common Application bans the box!

On August 7, 2018, the Common Application announced  that it is dropping the criminal history question from its college application form starting with 2019-2020 applicants.  Currently over 800 colleges and universities use the common application.  The criminal history question first appeared on the common application in 2006.  Individual colleges who are members of the Common Application will still be able to make inquiry on their own.

For the past decade, the Common Application has been under pressure from advocates, educators and the U.S. Education Department under the Obama administration to remove the criminal history question from its application form.  The call to remove the criminal history question from college applications first came from the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) in its 2010 publication, The Use of Criminal History Records in College Admissions Reconsidered.  A second study with policy recommendation was published by CCA in collaboration with the Education from the Inside Out Coalition in 2015, Boxed Out: Criminal History Screening and College Application Attrition, and underscored the harm done by the use of the criminal history box on college applications.

As more colleges and universities have banned the box, the Common Application has been under growing pressure to abolish this discriminatory and counterproductive practice.  Removing barriers to the admission of students with criminal history records to higher education is one way to improve public safety, combat mass incarceration, and make reentry meaningful.

Vermont AG supports opportunities for diversion and expungement

Vermont Business Magazine recently showcased the leadership shown by Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan in criminal justice reform.  Most notably, he has streamlined the process for seeking expungement, and increased opportunities to avoid a record entirely through greater use of diversion for less serious offenses.  The importance of enabling people to avoid a criminal record altogether through these two mechanisms cannot be overstated.  Donovan also championed last year’s bail reforms that will ensure low-income individuals are not held in jail prior to trial simply because they are poor. The article is worth posting in full as an illustration of a new breed of prosecutor committed to reducing the ill effects of the “tough on crime” era on individuals and communities least able to overcome them.

Read more

Landmark criminal record disclosure case in the UK Supreme Court

Court litigation and policy debate revolving around the issue of criminal record disclosure are not unique to the United States. Especially in the United Kingdom, the past few years have witnessed important court decisions on the legal framework in place regulating access to criminal history information and the amount of information that can be obtained by third parties. For people with criminal records in the United Kingdom, last month was pretty significant.  This is why I am very happy to post on the CCRC blog a commentary on recent litigation before the UK Supreme Court authored by Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, an independent charity organization that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record. Christopher last month led Unlock’s intervention before the UK Supreme Court. They put forward strong arguments on behalf of those who are unfairly affected by the criminal records disclosure regime.

Before discussing the case, let me briefly summarize the framework of the disclosure regime currently in place in the UK.  This regime and the ongoing court litigation should be particularly interesting to advocates and lawmakers in the U.S. who are working to reform their own regimes.

Following the adoption of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in 1974, adult and juvenile convictions automatically become “spent” after the passage of a certain amount of “rehabilitation” time following completion of the sentence if the punishment imposed in court did not exceed a certain threshold provided for by the law (currently, a custodial sentence of over four years). Convictions triggering a custodial sentence of more than four years can never become spent.  Required periods of post-sentence rehabilitation before a conviction is considered spent currently range from one to seven years for adult convictions, and from six months to three and a half years for juvenile offenses.  There is no rehabilitation period before criminal records not resulting in conviction are considered spent.

Read more

NH limits denial of licenses based on criminal record

On July 2, 2018, New Hampshire’s Governor Sununu signed into law SB 589, making his state the 10th so far in 2018 to approve comprehensive limits on consideration of criminal record in occupational and professional licensing.  Like enactments earlier this year in Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, New Hampshire’s new law is intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly denied a license based on their record of arrest or conviction.  In this respect, it reflects the provisions of the Institute for Justice’s model occupational licensing act.

New Hampshire’s new law, which goes into effect on August 31, authorizes individuals to seek a preliminary determination as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying, and allows disqualification only based on a demonstrated public safety concern arising from the facts and circumstances of an individual’s situation.  It requires a board to give reasons for denial in writing, to explain what remedial measures an individual may take to address the board’s concerns, and limits the amount of the fee the board may charge to render its determination.  Finally, it requires each board to report annually on the number of licenses granted and denied to people with a criminal record.  The provisions of the new law are explained in further detail below.

Read more

BU Law Review publishes symposium on misdemeanors

In May 2018 the Boston University Law Review published a symposium titled “Misdemeanor Machinery: The Hidden Heart of the American Criminal Justice System.”  Links to the articles, which were presented at a conference held in November 2017, are below.  The conference also benefited from presentations by a number of distinguished academics, judges, and policy-makers, including Alexandra Natapoff, Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Jeffrey Fagan and retired Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The full list of speakers is available here.

A recurring theme throughout the conference was how misdemeanors impose significant collateral consequences, including in ways that are deeply disproportionate.  The articles offer valuable insight into how prosecutors, public defenders, lawmakers and judges ought to consider collateral consequences of misdemeanor arrests and convictions.  The entire symposium issue is well worth a read.

Read more

Justice Kennedy’s contributions to sentencing and corrections reform

The following post on Justice Kennedy’s contributions to sentencing and corrections reform appeared earlier this week on Douglas Berman’s Sentencing Law and Policy blog.  While it does not involve collateral consequences directly, it seems fitting that CCRC recognize the significant contributions the Justice made to criminal law, notably in his statements off the bench about the injustice and inhumanity of excessive punishment.  One of the most vivid memories I have of the 2008 ABA Roundtable conference whose proceedings were published in the FSR symposium issue discussed below, is of Justice Kennedy’s enthusiastic description of the federal reentry court that had recently been established in Oregon, one of the first of its kind.  He made sure we all appreciated, as we discussed sentencing issues, that the consequences of a criminal case have adverse effects on individuals long after they have served their court-imposed sentence.  In the decade since that conference, the idea that collateral consequences are an integral part of punishment that must at some point end, is one that that has taken root in new laws and practices in almost every state.

Read more

“Managing Collateral Consequences in the Information Age”

“Managing Collateral Consequences in the Information Age” is the title of a symposium issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter.  It is composed of papers prepared for a Roundtable conference on criminal records issues jointly sponsored by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of State Legislatures in January 2018, and associated primary source materials.  The issue’s Table of Contents shows the breadth and variety of topics covered. An introductory essay by Margaret Love summarizes the approach to managing collateral consequences in the revised sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code, and the seemingly contrary trends in criminal records management in state legislatures in recent years.  She describes each of the papers in the issue, and policy recommendations tentatively reached by participants in the January Roundtable.

  • Alessandro Corda of Queens University (Belfast) contributes a discussion of “American exceptionalism” in criminal records matters, and proposes a way of neutralizing their malign effect.
  • Scholars and practitioners describe how relief schemes work (or don’t work) in states as diverse as:
    • North Carolina (John Rubin, UNC/Government)
    • Tennessee (Joy Radice, UT/Law)
    • Nevada (Sen. Tick Segerblom and Nick Anthony, NV Legislature)
    • California (Jack Chin, UC Davis/Law; Eliza Hersh)
    • Indiana (Josh Gaines and Margaret Love, CCRC)
  • Douglas Berman and Nora Demleitner write about subsets of the collateral consequences problem (sex offender registration and marijuana decriminalization).
The issue also publishes the provisions of the Model Penal Code: Sentencing on non-conviction dispositions and on collateral consequences, and a collection of reports and other materials from the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.
The University of California Press has generously made available to non-subscribers the entire FSR issue for downloading at this link.

SC legislature overrides veto to broaden expungement laws

On June 27, the South Carolina legislature took the extraordinary step of overriding Governor McMaster’s veto of a bill that expanded eligibility for expungement in several significant (if relatively modest) ways.  House Bill 3209 is now law, and will take effect in six months.  This is one of the very few times in recent years that a state legislature has overridden a governor’s veto of a bill intended to improve opportunities for people with a criminal record.

The new law, which will go into effect after six months, extends expungement eligibility to first offense simple drug possession (after three years) or possession with intent to distribute (after twenty years), and to conviction of repealed offenses.  It also repeals first offender limits on expungement eligibility for convictions in magistrates court (summary offenses) and in juvenile proceedings, and applies all of these authorities retroactively.  HR 3209 also restructures fee provisions and authorizes private donations to defray costs for those who cannot afford to pay the fee.  Finally, HR 3209 authorizes expungement for anyone convicted prior to passage of the Youthful Offender Act of 2010 who could have been eligible for sentencing as a first offender under that provision.  The YOA provides that individuals between the ages of 17 and 25 who are convicted of certain non-violent misdemeanors and minor felonies may be sentenced to probation and treatment, so the extension of that law’s relief to pre-2010 convictions is quite significant.  

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 58