So he got four years in a case that called for an average of 21.5 years in prison. Manafort got his sentence reduced by 82%. That is a pretty substantial difference.
Can prosecutors appeal the sentence if they feel it was too lenient?
[sub]Note: This is intentionally in GQ. I am only noting that the sentence handed down is well below federal guidelines. I am not trying to debate whether or not you think he actually deserves more time in prison. That is a topic for not here.[/sub]
Yes. In the federal jurisdiction the government can appeal a sentence on the grounds that it is less than the minimum specified in the applicable guidelines. However, the appeal cannot be pursued “without the personal approval of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or a deputy solicitor general designated by the Solicitor General”. So this is a very high-level decision.
The appeal court considers whether:
The trial court failed to provide the written statement of reasons for the sentence it imposed;
The sentence departs from the guidelines based on a factor is improper (having regard to the statutory sentencing considerations that trial courts are required to consider) or unjustified (by the facts oif the case);
The sentence departs from the guidelines to an unreasonable extent (again, having regard to the statutory sentencing considerations).
In other words, the appeal court can’t overturn the sentence just because it doesn’t like it, or because if it were the trial court it would have imposed a different senterce. It has to assess the sentence by these criteria. And, if it does find the sentence erroneous by reference to these criteria, it doesn’t substitute what it thinks is the correct sentence; it sends the case back to the trial court for resentencing (with a few choice words pointing out the flaws in the previous sentencing exercise).
This is a preemptive notice to stick strictly to the GQ aspects of the OP. There are Pit threads available for commentary about your personal opinions on the sentence.
Just wanted to point out that such a thing would be dangerously close to double jeopardy (from the 5th amendment “(no person shall) be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”).
However, courts can (and have) reprimanded lower courts for improper interpretation or application of the law. UDS has already covered how that would work.
Best (recent) example of one court reprimanding another I’ve seen was ‘TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC’ where the Supreme Court explained to a federal court in Texas that residency (for purposes of jurisdiction) is not granted by the presence a local sales office, or access to a website.
You make it sound as though the appeals court is restricted in coming to a different conclusion but if there is one thing debating Supreme Court cases on the SDMB has taught me is that a court can almost always argue its way to its desired conclusion (and yes, I know this is not the SCOTUS but appeals courts do it too). Your point one seems straightforward but points two and three seem they could easily be found one way or the other at the court’s whim given that the sentence in question clearly is well outside of the written guidelines.
To avoid any doubt, I make no comment on the sentence in the Manafort case.
Yes, I think there’s quite a bit of scope for an appeal court to set aside an outside-the-guidelines sentence. All I’m saing is that it shouldn’t, and probablly won’t, be set aside purely because it’s outside the guidelines. The appeal court will look at the trial court’s statement for reasons for departing from the guidelines; it will evauate those reasons against the statutury sentencing considerations; it will look at the facts of the case (as found by the trial court) to see if they support the stated reasons for the sentence, etc. etc.
And of course this cuts both ways. Because the trial judge imposing a conspicuously below-the-guidelines sentence is aware that it might be appealed, and because he knows the criteria that will be applied if it is appealed, he can try to frame his sentence, and the reasons for it, and his findings of fact, in a way that will stand up when the sentence is evaluated against those criteria. He can’t make it appeal-proof, obviously, but he can do a certain amount to make it appeal-resistant.
The question clearly though not explicitly is assuming the US. In Anglo Saxon type systems that tends to be more limited than Continental ones, and their various descendants around the world. It’s been common in recent corruption trials in South Korea (where the legal system was originally modeled on Germany’s) for defendants to have their sentences increased on appeal, though others were reduced or suspended on appeal. In many other countries with legal systems not derived from England’s, there’s more leeway to do this than in the US.
In a sentencing appeal of, say, Paul Manafort, would judge TS Ellis’ sentencing history for similar convictions come into play? Like, if Ellis routinely stuck within the guidelines but broke out just this one time, would that be a consideration? Because if he’s always outside the guidelines to the lower end, then that says something about what he thinks about white collar crime. But if it’s an isolated case then it seems to say more about his feelings about the … criminal … in this instance.
It’s also worth noting that appellate review of sentencing decisions, including those outside of the guideline range, is supposed to be a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard (and, in my experience, generally is). Most of the cases that I am aware of where a district court gets reversed on sentencing involves some procedural error (miscalculation of the guidelines, for example) or an inadequate explanation.
In regard to double jeopardy, if it turns out that the court acted partly on the basis of a bribe or other illicit tampering, the defendant wasn’t actually in jeopardy, and a court can act again on the same crime. I know this because I think I vaguely remember an episode of Law and Order. But I don’t know if this has to do with conviction, or sentencing, or all court actions in a criminal case, or what.