Category: Uncategorized

CCRC seeking lawyer to work on Restoration of Rights Project

The CCRC is seeking a lawyer to join its staff to work primarily on the Restoration of Rights Project (RRP).  The primary duties of the RRP Legal Analyst, as described in the position description below, involve collecting and analyzing the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights; and, updating the on-line resources that comprise the RRP.  An important part of the job is identifying and tracking bills relating to restoration of rights as they become law, which has become an increasingly important and challenging task in the past several years.  In conducting legal research, preparing reports, and responding to inquiries, the RRP Legal Analyst will have a unique opportunity to engage with CCRC staff and lawyers across the country who are working in this emerging area of scholarship and practice. The RRP Legal Analyst position is part-time, though applicants should be prepared to commit to at least 15-20 hours per week for at least six months.  The position may be particularly attractive to individuals seeking a flexible work schedule and workplace.  The position will be compensated on an hourly basis, starting at a base rate of $26.50 per hour, a rate that may be negotiable depending on experience. Applicants should have familiarity with criminal law and procedure, and preferably with the legislative process, and they should have proven research and writing skills.  Please see the position description for further details.  A letter of interest, resume and writing sample, as well as the names of references, should be sent to Margaret Love, CCRC executive director, at margaretlove@pardonlaw.com. https://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RRP-LegalAnalyst.12.6.18.final_-1.pdf Read more

David Schlussel joins CCRC as its first Fellow

I am delighted to announce that David Schlussel will join CCRC as its first Fellow at the end of this month.  Most recently, David served as a law clerk for the Honorable David O. Carter on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While attending law school at Berkeley, David represented clients in juvenile delinquency, school discipline, and clean slate proceedings as a clinical student for the East Bay Community Law Center. He also interned at public defender offices, taught outreach courses in Juvenile Hall, and wrote a law review note on marijuana, race, and collateral consequences. David has been interested in inequities in the criminal justice system since college, when he volunteered as a GED tutor at the New Haven jail. During his fellowship year, David will be maintaining CCRC resources, including the Restoration of Rights Project; reporting on new laws and developments in the courts; and drafting analytical pieces on significant scholarship and research relating to collateral consequences.  One of his first assignments will be preparing a round-up of the “second chance” legislation enacted during 2018 – to date, more than 50 separate laws in thirty-two states.  During his tenure, David hopes to participate in drafting an amicus brief, an opportunity that could come very soon with a major new challenge to Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration scheme pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. David’s piece on California’s new occupational licensing law that will post later today on the site is the first of what I expect will be many of his thought-provoking analyses of significant new “second chance” legislation. 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. The University of California Press Blog has this new posting titled “Justice Kennedy’s Contributions to Sentencing and Corrections Reform: An Appreciation.”  The piece is authored by Margaret Colgate Love, and here are extended excerpts: In 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy made a dramatic and surprising presentation to the American Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in San Francisco in which he raised fundamental questions about the fairness and efficacy of criminal punishment in the United States.  He recognized that arrests and highly publicized trials often command public attention, but that interest drops off sharply even among lawyers after a person has been convicted and sentenced.  He challenged the legal profession to consider what happens after “the door is locked against the prisoner,” remarking that “[e]ven those of us who have specific professional responsibilities for the criminal justice system can be neglectful when it comes to the subject of corrections.” Justice Kennedy lamented the sheer number of people in prison, the severity of mandatory punishments, and their disproportionate impact on racial minorities. He urged greater judicial discretion in sentencing, and he also called for reinvigoration of the pardon power.  Perhaps most significantly, he spoke in compelling terms about the dehumanizing experience of prison and the importance of rehabilitation as a punishment goal.  He ended by asking the ABA to “help start a new public discussion” about the American way of punishment. Incoming ABA President Dennis Archer moved quickly to begin that discussion by establishing a commission to which Justice Kennedy subsequently agreed to lend his name…. In 2008, the ABA commission to which Justice Kennedy had originally lent his name convened a Roundtable in Washington to discuss mechanisms that permit reduction of a court-imposed sentence.  These mechanisms are sometimes collectively referred to as “second look” provisions, a term that originated in the American Law Institute’s project to revise the sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code.  It includes not only rules that authorize reduction of a specific prisoner’s term, such as executive clemency, but also provisions available on a more routine basis to all or most similarly situated prisoners, such as parole or good time. Foreseeing the importance of a thoughtful and interactive discussion of sentence reduction mechanisms, the ABA invited an extraordinary group of judges, practitioners, and academics to give these mechanisms a serious look. The Roundtable format involved a brief presentation of papers followed by discussion by Roundtable participants moderated by Jeremy Travis, then president of John Jay College.  Justice Kennedy himself joined the Roundtable for part of its afternoon session.  The papers prepared for the occasion, as well as a record of the Roundtable proceedings and recommendations, were published in the spring of 2009 in a dedicated issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. In appreciation for the role Justice Kennedy has played in inspiring public discussion of sentencing and corrections reform, FSR is proud to make available to the public the articles and proceedings from that 2009 symposium issue on the “Second Look Roundtable,” on the occasion of his retirement from the Supreme Court. The articles and proceedings from the 2009 FSR issue on “second look” sentencing can be downloaded at this site. Read more

Bail or (collateral) consequences

April Camara of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) writes as a guest blogger about how the availability of bail may determine whether an individual is adversely affected by collateral consequences: The Prison Policy Initiative recently reported that the explosive growth in jail populations since the 1980s is predominantly the result of jailing people who are accused of crimes and awaiting trial.[1] This is especially true for the past 15 years, in which time 99% of jail growth has been comprised of people who are detained pretrial and legally presumed innocent.[2] To curb this growth, the MacArthur Foundation has invested more than $100 million dollars into reducing jail incarceration and racial disparities in America through the Safety and Justice Challenge (“SJC”).  NLADA serves as a strategic ally in the SJC, and we are making the case to show investing in public defense yields system-wide benefits to pre-trial reform.  We understand that a person’s likelihood to be released on bail while pending trial is significantly increased when they are represented by counsel, and defense advocacy minimizes the harm that incarceration does to a person’s life.  Research shows that people who are in jail before trial have worse outcomes in their criminal cases and in their lives.[3] As a result of pretrial detention, they are: More likely to fail to appear for court. More likely to lose connections to employment, housing, and family. More likely to be convicted. More likely to have a longer prison sentence. More likely to be rearrested for new crimes. [4] These long-term collateral consequences destabilize not just the accused and their families, but their wider communities. Criminal justice stakeholders involved in the Challenge understand these implications, and defenders are collaborating with local stakeholders to reduce the overall number of people who are presumed innocent and are in jail while awaiting trial.   ________________ [1] Joshua Aiken, Era of Mass Expansion: Why State Officials Should Fight Jail Growth, Prison Policy Initiative,(2017). [2] Peter Wagner, Jails matter. But who is listening?, Prison Policy Initiative (Aug. 14, 2015). . [3]See Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute (2015). [4] Aiken, supra note 1; Laura & John Arnold Found., Pretrial Criminal Justice Research (2013); Megan Stevenson, Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes (2017).   Read more

Living with a marijuana conviction after legalization (updated)

Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason, has written a fabulous article about expungement of marijuana convictions in places that have since legalized marijuana: so far 10 states, DC, and the Northern Mariana Islands have legalized.  The piece is currently available to Reason subscribers and will be available to the public in the coming weeks (we will update this post with the link). Sullum tells the stories of eleven individuals, from the jurisdictions that have legalized, who describe how their marijuana convictions have impacted their lives before and after legalization.  He documents the lingering legal and social sanctions that burden people long after they have served their sentences, sanctions that “seem especially unjust and irrational in the growing number of U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.” The piece explores the varying extent to which states offer forms of relief: from meager in most jurisdictions to generous in California to nearly non-existent in Alaska.  States that allow for expungement often include only people with low-level offenses and “put the onus on prohibition’s victims to seek the sealing or expungement of their criminal records, a process that can be complicated, expensive, and time-consuming.”  Sullum quotes CCRC’s executive director Margaret Love on how difficult it can be to access expungement, and how collateral consequences can function as a system of punishment “that offers no way out, that never ends.” The eleven profiled individuals are looking for a way out.  They reflect on the experience of living with a record.  Only a few have been eligible to access relief (each state’s record-closing laws are discussed, along with an estimate of the cost and time it takes to expunge a record or receive a pardon).  They describe the barriers and stigma they have experienced in employment, housing, travel, education, and even in efforts to join the legalized marijuana industry (a helpful chart documents how a marijuana conviction can disqualify someone from participating in this burgeoning new sector of the economy).  These stories and accompanying policy analysis show how “people convicted under the old regime continue to suffer for actions that are no longer crimes.” Read more