ShareThis Page
Manafort case sparks conversation about sentence disparities | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Manafort case sparks conversation about sentence disparities

Associated Press
| Friday, March 8, 2019 8:14 p.m
857617_web1_857617-ecf53c35d450455fa4c4afceeef568ed
In this Nov. 6, 2017, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, leaves the federal courthouse in Washington. A federal judge’s decision to sentence Manafort to less than four years in prison for his conviction on eight felony tax and bank fraud charges, sparked anger and outrage and opened up a conversation about whether the justice system treats different kinds of crimes, and different kinds of criminals, fairly. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
857617_web1_857617-b32ed9e54db443d8ad7f055d9eb306d4
In this March 6, 2019, file photo, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington. Booker told “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Thursday, March 7, that the criminal justice system “treats you better if you’re rich and guilty than if you’re poor and innocent” and preys upon the most vulnerable: “Poor folks, mentally ill folks, addicted folks and overwhelmingly black and brown folks.” (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
857617_web1_857617-8fafdbfce4be43b682a0ff1f1e9c2b90
In this April 17, 2018, photo, Crystal Mason speaks to the media in downtown Dallas. Mason, a black woman from Texas who was sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison for voting illegally in 2016, while she was on supervised release from a federal conviction, said she didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to vote. (Andy Jacobsohn/The Dallas Morning News via AP)
857617_web1_857617-2469f685458047f69fe57ce81bb3bbdb
In this April 17, 2018, photo, Crystal Mason, right, wipes away a tear after mentioning her children while speaking to the media as she sits with Dominique Alexander, of the Next Generation Action Network, and civil rights attorney Kim Cole in downtown Dallas. Mason, a black woman from Texas who was sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison for voting illegally in 2016, while she was on supervised release from a federal conviction, said she didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to vote. (Andy Jacobsohn/The Dallas Morning News via AP)

A judge’s decision to sentence President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman to less than four years in prison — a fraction of the penalty called for in government guidelines — sparked widespread anger Friday and opened up a conversation about whether the justice system treats different crimes and criminals fairly.

Judge T.S. Ellis III’s comment that Paul Manafort had lived an “otherwise blameless life” was particularly galling to those who pointed out that Manafort’s past included work for people such as Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos and Congolese dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

Sen. Cory Booker, a Democratic presidential candidate, told “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Thursday night that the criminal justice system “treats you better if you’re rich and guilty than if you’re poor and innocent” and preys upon the most vulnerable such as “poor folks, mentally ill folks, addicted folks and overwhelmingly black and brown folks.”

Asked if he was shocked, Booker replied, “No, this criminal justice system can’t surprise me anymore.”

Manafort, 69, was convicted by a jury in Virginia of eight felony tax and bank fraud charges. Probation officials calculated a guideline range of 19.5 to 24.5 years.

Many observers raised the case of Crystal Mason, a black woman from Texas who was sentenced in state court last year to five years in prison for voting illegally in 2016, while she was on supervised release from a federal conviction. Mason said she didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to vote.

Her lawyer, Alison Grinter, said Friday that the judge’s comment about Manafort being “blameless” was infuriating, especially considering that he is awaiting sentencing on a different case in Washington, where he faces up to 10 more years. The Washington judge who will sentence him next week has the option to impose that sentence either concurrently or consecutively.

“I’m absolutely aghast. I hardly recognize the judicial system,” Grinter said. Mason and “so many other folks like her have come to expect this kind of disparity. It’s only now that we’re paying attention to it.”

Grinter pointed out that her client’s original crime was a single tax-related federal charge, and she received the maximum sentence. Manafort, on the other hand, received more than 15 years less than what was called for under the low end of the guideline range.

The most recent statistics from the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that, in fiscal year 2017, roughly half of all federal sentences came in below the guidelines, while only 3 percent went above the guidelines. Roughly three-fourths of all tax cases came in below the guidelines in that fiscal year, according to the commission.

In Manafort’s case, the judge called the guideline range “excessive.” During Thursday’s hearing, he noted that the guidelines were recently changed to calculate higher sentences in tax cases. As a result, many tax evaders who similarly avoided millions of dollars in taxes over the years received much lighter sentences, sometimes less than a year. Defense lawyers cited those cases, and Ellis said he arrived at his sentence in part to avoid unwarranted disparities.

Ellis , who was born in Bogota, Colombia, was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

A review of several of Ellis’ cases by The Associated Press found that he is sometimes lenient, meting out lower-than-recommended sentences in multiple fraud and drug cases this year and last. In one drug case, he sentenced a defendant to just over four years, nearly five years less than the nine years called for by the lower end of the guideline range.

However, most of his sentencing departures could be measured in months.

In another high-profile case in 2009, Ellis sentenced Congressman William J. Jefferson to 13 years in prison for bribery and fraud, significantly less than the 27 to 33 years calculated for Jefferson under the sentencing guidelines. Still, it was the longest-ever prison sentence for a member of Congress. Ellis later released him after he had served less than half his sentence due to a Supreme Court ruling in another bribery case.

Jefferson, who is black, told the AP on Friday that he believed Manafort’s sentence was “grossly inequitable.”

“I just count it as another recognition of a fault in the system that seems to be ever-present when it comes to comparing how blacks and whites who are similarly situated are treated differently,” he said. The disparity “keeps showing its ugly face.”

Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a group that works to reform sentencing policy and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system, said the system is a function of race and class disparities.

Manafort and other wealthy white-collar defendants are able to afford the best defense money can buy, he said. He questioned why the legal system does not “provide those same resources to the indigent defendants, who are the bulk of the people going through the court system?”

Another way to look at the issue, he said, is “that many people are getting harsh sentences. If there’s one thing that characterizes the American court system, it’s that our sentences are very severe by any international standards.”

Not everyone thought the sentence was too lenient. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said Manafort had been treated out of proportion to what he had done. Giuliani blamed prosecutors for what he called “excessive zeal.”

“He’s not a terrorist. He’s not an organized criminal,” said Giuliani, who was known for his tough-on-crime approach when he was mayor of New York City. “He’s a white-collar criminal.”

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.