1-16-2015: The Prosecutor

My day began with a sentencing proceeding in federal court with Magistrate Judge Armstrong. The defendant was a Canadian citizen, and she attended the proceeding from Canada because she was unable to be present in the United States.

The sentencing began with the judge reviewing the defendant's charge of illegal entry into the United States. The facts surrounding the allegation were that she had previously entered the United States legally on a visa, but overstayed the visa and was deported. She then hired a pilot to fly her across Lake Erie in an attempt to enter the United States illegally. She was promptly caught and arrested, along with the pilot, and was charged with illegal entry, in her case, a misdemeanor. The defendant pled guilty to her charge. In between her arrest and court proceedings, she spent a total of sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center. If she was to be sentenced to jail time, she would receive credit for the days she had already served in jail.

The judge stated that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to her defendant's charge because she was convicted of a class B misdemeanor (for more information on sentencing procedures and sentencing guidelines, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing"). The judge then began to talk about possible sentences. In this case, law allows a sentence up to six months in jail, a $5000 fine, supervised release, or any combination of those previous three options.

The defendant's defense lawyer said that he felt no sentence longer than sixty days would be appropriate, saying that her sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center was enough of a punishment. The prosecutor agreed that her sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center were enough, but he argued that she be fined $1000 in order to deter her from trying to illegally enter the United States again, as well as to deter others.

The judge sentenced her to sixty days in jail, with credit from time that the defendant had already served in the county jail, along with a $700 fine, to meet the interests of the prosecution and the defense somewhere in between. This means that she would serve no additional time in custody.

I met briefly with Judge Armstrong after the case, during which I asked some questions. She explained to me that many individuals think the courtroom is very intense and that the judge is impatient, as seen on the show Judge Judy. She disagrees with this, and says that the courtroom should be very civil and orderly place, with all parties being polite to each other. I agree with her, because in all of the courtrooms I have seen during my Winterim, the proceedings have gone very smoothly without any "courtroom drama."

After the sentencing, I had the opportunity to meet and ask questions to the prosecutor for this case, Assistant United States Attorney Mike Freeman. We first took a tour of the United States Attorney's Office. There are eight criminal United States Attorneys and four civil United States Attorneys in the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio's United States Attorney's Office. The criminal attorneys represent the government (prosecution) in trials. The civil attorneys represent federal government lawsuits against other agencies (for example, a lawsuit against a local police department for racial discrimination) and lawsuits against the federal government (for example, suing for damages after falling and getting injured in the federal courthouse. Obviously, because he was a prosecutor in the criminal case described above, Mr. Freeman is one of the eight criminal attorneys who works in the office.

I then sat down with Mr. Freeman in his office to ask him questions about the arguments that prosecutors make, including those in this particular case. I asked him about the sentencing recommendation he made to the judge. His opinion was that a sentence of some sort was necessary to reflect upon the seriousness of the crime the defendant had committed, in addition to the potential bodily harm she could have caused to herself and the pilot. He didn't ask for six months in jail (four of which would be additional months) because he didn't feel like she deserved it. However, his argument for the $1000 fine was for the deterrent effect for her and others and also to reflect upon the serious nature of her crime, trying to enter the United States illegally.

I moved on to prosecutors' arguments in offering plea deals. I began by asking why he didn't offer a plea deal at arraignment in this case. He explained the misconception that a plea deal is always offered at arraignment, but this is not always true. In this instance, the charges were not serious enough that there could possibly be a long sentence; this is why a plea deal wasn't offered in the case that I saw today. Mr. Freeman explained that about plea deals in general, many factors go into deciding whether or not to offer one. One possible factor is be the seriousness of the case; if a case has more serious charges, there is less of a possibility that the prosecution will offer a plea deal. Another factor he talked about is the criminal history of a defendant. The prosecution is less likely to offer plea deals to defendants with a criminal history.

Mr. Freeman told me that the best part of this job was that unlike other individuals in the legal field, he can do whatever he thinks is right. He doesn't have to represent a client, and only proceeds with a case if he thinks it is right to do so with enough evidence and probable cause. He is the one who gets to make the decision if it is unethical to proceed with a case or if the government should gather more evidence. It is his opinion, and it is not bound to anyone else's.

Finally, Mr. Freeman explained how the government moves forward with a prosecution. He first gets evidence presented to him from a federal law enforcement agency (such as the FBI, the Secret Service, or the DEA). He looks through the evidence to see if there is probable cause for a case. If there is enough evidence and probable cause, may he may then proceed with more investigative work (such as tapping phones and obtaining search warrants). When he is ready, he takes his case the grand jury. The grand jury decides whether or not to indict an individual. They must vote to indict (formally charge) an individual; if they do not indict on a case, no charges can be filed against that individual. If the grand jury indicts an individual, the defendant is called to court for an arraignment (for more information on arraignments, see blog post "1-14-2015: Arraignments). The defendant is now involved in the process with official court proceedings (for more information on trials, see page "Appendix to the Trial" for a list of blog posts about trials; for more information on sentencing proceedings, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing").

I have met many goals today. I first saw another sentencing in federal court, but with a different judge. In addition, I had time to talk to her and get her perspective on this case. This pertains to my goal of learning how courts in the United States function. I then was able to meet with an Assistant United States Attorney to get his perspective on what arguments the prosecution makes in court and why they make these arguments. I have seen the perspectives of many individuals, and will sleep well this weekend after many late nights writing blog posts.