Pubdate: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 Source: Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, GA) Copyright: 2011 Ledger-Enquirer Contact: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/237 Author: Jim Mustian RED RIBBON WEEK: NEW FEDERAL LAW CHANGES PENALTIES FOR CRACK-RELATED CRIMES Congress Softens Stance After Years of Criticism When the feds caught Eddie Tyrone Walker selling crack near a funeral home eight years ago, the Richland, Ga., man was looking at serious prison time. Even after cutting a plea deal, he was sentenced in 2005 to 12 1/2 years behind bars in light of his criminal history and the steep federal penalties for crack-related crimes. With no chance of parole in the federal system, an early release seemed implausible for the confessed crack dealer. But Walker's outlook has changed considerably over the past few years as the government has softened its rigid stance on the cooked-down version of cocaine. Twenty-six months were chopped off Walker's sentence in 2008 after sentencing guidelines were scaled back. Now, as new changes to the crack guidelines are to become retroactive next month, the 44-year-old is lobbying the courts for an immediate release. Walker claims he is among an estimated 12,000 federal prisoners expected to benefit from the extended scope of an amendment to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, landmark legislation passed by Congress last year that aimed to reduce controversial disparities between crack and powder cocaine in federal sentencing. Not every federal prisoner serving time for crack is eligible to seek a reduction under the amendment, and many still will be required to complete mandatory sentences due to the volume of crack in their cases. Congress could intervene and stop the amendment from becoming retroactive on Nov. 1, but that seems unlikely at this point, said Julie Stewart, president and founder of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "It would be hard for them to do that because it requires a vote on the amendment, and I don't expect that to happen," Stewart said. "There haven't been very many times in the history of the U.S. Sentencing Commission that any amendment they've given to Congress to consider has actually been stopped." Supporters of the Fair Sentencing Act hailed the law as a long-awaited step toward leveling out the federal penalties for crack and powder cocaine crimes. The law reduced from 100-1 to 18-1 the ratio between crack and powder cocaine quantities required to trigger five and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. Twenty-eight grams of crack instead of 5 are now needed to mandate a five-year minimum sentence, while the threshold for a minimum 10-year sentence increased to 280 grams from 50 grams. The law also eliminated the minimum mandatory sentence for simple possession of 5 grams or more of crack cocaine. "There's still a distinction between the two drugs, but we're happy they made a change," Stewart said. "It was a strong vote." Federal crimes involving crack cocaine have carried harsher penalties than those involving cocaine in its powder form since 1986. Crack, which causes a more intense high and is relatively cheap, was long thought to be more addictive and dangerous than ordinary powder cocaine. The mandatory minimum sentences sprang from sweeping legislation passed shortly after the death of Len Bias, a basketball star drafted by the Boston Celtics who overdosed on cocaine. The law also came amid an epidemic of drug-related violence that prompted calls for tougher penalties. But the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 has since attracted a growing chorus of critics who claim the law was an overreaction that subjected low-level crack users to punishment equal or harsher than that for drug kingpins dealing in powder cocaine. Columbus defense attorney Bill Mason said the guidelines of old were "grossly disproportionate" and often resulted in racial disparities because blacks have historically been more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. "The government's justification was that crack was more addictive, and therefore more dangerous, regardless of who has it," Mason said. "The courts refused to remove the disparity, but now Congress has, so I think that's a good thing." Tina Hunt, an attorney with the federal defenders office in Macon, Ga., said the changes approved by Congress will drastically improve the fairness of the criminal justice system. "I think the differences and unfairness in how people have been treated thus far has really been horrendous," Hunt said. "Do I think the Fair Sentencing Act could have gone further? The answer is yes." Some prosecutors, however, have cautioned against the potential dangers of releasing prisoners prematurely. They say applications for reduced sentences will be time consuming for U.S. Attorney offices, some of which are expecting a flurry of court motions. The softening of federal crack penalties already has changed the way some prosecutors approach cases. Federal prosecutors in Columbus, for instance, have declined to handle at least one recent crack case, telling investigators they could get more "bang for their buck" in state court, according to an official. (The Fair Sentencing Act did not change state laws.) It's not clear how many local cases will be affected by the retroactive amendment. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has projected that 157 prisoners sentenced in the Middle District of Georgia -- a broad jurisdiction that includes Columbus and stretches from Valdosta to Athens -- will be eligible to apply for a reduced sentence. That estimate is 87 prisoners for the Middle District of Alabama, which includes Montgomery and Opelika. Average reductions will be about 37 months for eligible defendants. The Bureau of Prisons has said the retroactivity of the amendment could save more than $200 million over the next five years. Ellen S. Moore, chief of the U.S. Probation Office in Macon, said officials have identified about 20 prisoners sentenced in the Middle District of Georgia who may be eligible for immediate release. She added that "it is the judge's ultimate decision after considering a number of factors whether or not they are released immediately." "At this time, I cannot disclose how many of these defendants may be from the Columbus division," Moore wrote in an email. Walker, the Stewart County crack dealer, was so eager to ask the court for early release that he filed a motion on his own behalf three weeks before the Nov. 1 effective date of the retroactive amendment. Prosecutors previously have argued that Walker's history of using and selling illegal drugs makes him a danger to the community. But Walker claims he's been a "model inmate," furthering his education and participating in a drug abuse program in prison. U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land said in a ruling that he lacked the authority to reduce the sentence until the amendment becomes retroactive next month. Land denied the motion as premature, but without prejudice -- meaning Walker may try his luck again. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.