Habitual Inequality: Inequity Built Into Habitual Offender Laws

I have noticed over the course of my legal career that criminal defendants with money, or supportive families with money, fare better than those who are poor.  We see it play out in several distinct ways within the criminal justice system.  It has been pointed out how poor people pay astronomically higher fines and fees in traffic and misdemeanor courts, such as Municipal Courts.  People with money get a traffic ticket, or some other minor municipal offense, like Disturbing the Peace, or Public Intoxication, and they simply pay the fine with a single check.  These monied offenders are then off the hook, living footloose and fancy free.  However, people without money – poor people – often cannot afford to pay the fine, and they have to be placed on some type of payment plan, almost always with an additional fee on top of the fine.  If these people cannot make the payment, they may incur late fee penalties, of even contempt of court fines.  John Oliver recently discussed this topic, highlighting a particular case – which is more common than you might think – where a person began with a $100 ticket, and ended up paying well over $1,000!

We have also seen some discussion lately about the inequality faced by pre-trial offenders’ ability to post bail to get out of jail while the charges are pending.  Bail is set in practically every case, with few special exceptions.  However, again, while people with money can post bail – even on serious charges – poor people often have much more difficulty – even on minor crimes.  As it stands, it is not uncommon for a wealthy man charged with rape or murder to post bail without spending more than a few days in jail, while a poor, black man sits in jail for months on a minor marijuana charge simply because he couldn’t afford the $150 required by the bondsman to post bail.  In fact, last year the U.S. Justice Department actually acknowledged this problem, generating a memo that said “[b]ail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”  Several high profile cases have since made progress toward evening that playing field, though there is still a long way to go.

More and more lately, I have also noticed another wealth-dependent privilege contained in most – if not all – Multiple Offender statutes.  These are laws that add additional and increased penalties for repeat offenders.  Most states and the federal government have broad Habitual Offender statutes that apply to all felony offenses and offenders.  For example, a person with a prior burglary conviction will get a longer sentence on his 2nd burglary conviction pursuant to these Habitual Offender statutes.  In Louisiana, 2nd and 3rd offenses generally carry up to double the maximum sentence for a first offense, while 4th time offenders face a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison up to a maximum of life without parole – even for relatively minor drug offenses, such that a person with 3 prior convictions for simple possession of cocaine – or even non-narcotic prescription medication – can be locked up for life on a fourth offense.

There are also crime-specific multiple offender statutes, such as multiple offenses for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).  DWI is, in many states, referred to as an “enhanceable misdemeanor,” meaning that the penalties vary depending on the number of previous DWI convictions.  Again, in Louisiana, while DWI first and second offense are misdemeanors with a maximum of 6 months in jail, a fourth offense carries a minimum of 10 years up to a maximum of 20 years at hard labor.

While I am generally opposed to oppressive habitual offender sentencing schemes, I understand the reasoning behind them.  As long as they aren’t abused, and they offer judicial discretion to account for special circumstances, I don’t generally have a strong objection.  However, the way it is implemented in many places today is too strict, not taking the individual facts of the case into account, and essentially punishing petty thieves, or petty drug offenders, with the same degree of punishment as serious, violent offenders, such as murderers and rapists.

And, of course, there is a certain amount of inequality built into the statutes.  Most habitual offender statutes will offer a “cleansing” period for prior convictions, only allowing the prosecutor to use convictions less than ten years old, for example.  But that doesn’t mean they can’t still use older convictions, as long as there was a “linking” conviction less than ten years prior to the current charge.  For instance, if you were charged in 2017 with a felony, and you had a prior felony conviction in 2008, and another in 1999, and another in 1990, they could charge you as a fourth-time felony offender, since each of the prior convictions is less than 10 years older than the next one.  However, if you were charged in 2017 and your prior convictions were in 2006, 2005, and 2004, you could still be a first time offender, since the most recent one was more than ten years ago.

There’s a catch – and this is where is gets really unfair.  The time period for “cleansing” your record does not start to run until the end of your sentence on the prior conviction, and – wait for it – payment of all fines and fees.  So here we go again, a system where you get a faster cleansing period just by having more money.  So a rich guy could get convicted of a felony in 2007, get 6 months probation and a $1,000 fine, and would be completely cleansed by mid-2017, free to commit another consequence-free felony.   However, a poor guy could get the same sentence, yet not be able to pay the fine up front, and have to go on a payment plan, and pay additional fees, and sometimes contempt of court fees if he misses a payment, or could lose his job and stop paying altogether, and he could still be technically “on probation” for years.  During that entire time – until the last dollar is paid – the clock is stopped on his cleansing period.

It is well settled in our law that a person cannot be punished for their inability to pay fines and fees.  In the case of an indigent defendant it is impermissible to impose a prison term in lieu of fine payment that would result in the defendant’s serving a longer term than the maximum for the offense, Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).   It is likewise impermissible to imprison an indigent defendant for failure to pay a fine for a crime punishable by fines only, Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971).  Most importantly, it is a constitutional violation to revoke a person’s probation, and increase their punishment, because the defendant could not pay his fine without determining that he had not made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay or that adequate alternative forms of punishment did not exist. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983).  Unfortunately, this framework has not yet been applied to the application of habitual offender statutes.

I have personally seen people who are charged with a 2nd offense DWI 25 years after a prior DWI, even though the cleansing period is 10 years, because they didn’t – or couldn’t – pay all the fines and fees they owed for the previous case.  Or perhaps even worse, I had a client with a prior felony theft charge from 2003 for which he received a 1 year sentence, plus a fine.  He successfully completed his probation, and paid all of his fines.  However, because there was some nominal court cost and/or administrative fee not paid in full, the record was not marked “closed” for several additional years.  When he was arrested again in 2016, because that case was not officially closed until 2007, he was charged as a habitual offender, when again, the cleansing period is ten (10) years.

I am not here advocating for the abolishment of habitual offender laws.  I am not advocating for the “right” of criminals to have an easier time avoiding enhanced sentences for recidivism.  I do have some pretty fundamental objections to the way most habitual offender statutes are written, but I will save those arguments for another article.  At this time, I am specifically opposed to the inequity written into these laws, allowing people with money to enjoy less severe consequences than those without money.  A law is not necessarily unfair if it invokes harsh consequences, but it is absolutely unfair if those consequences affect different people differently based solely on their ability to pay money.  That is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and should be addressed.  I’ll hold my breath while I’m waiting.

Until next time, I remain, Your Law Scholar.

The Wealth Gap: How Wealth Inequality Poisons Everything

I saw a shocking number today.  According to an Oxfam report titled An economy for the 99%, 8 individual people own as much wealth as 50% of the world’s total population.  That’s 3.6 billion to 8, or roughly 450 million to 1.  Just think about those numbers.  Somehow, even looking at that number, some of the smartest people I know refuse to believe that the deck is stacked, the game is rigged.  They honestly believe –

Read More

A Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President: Having been a student of politics and government for more than 20 years, it has become clear that not one single American President has done everything exactly as I would have liked.  Some have come closer than others, and some have missed the mark by a wide margin.  But as we bid farewell to you, our 44th POTUS, it is equally clear that President Barrack Obama was just what we needed at

Read More

First Amendment 101: A Refresher For Our President-Elect

Donald Trump, who became our presumptive president-elect earlier this month in an electoral college victory over Hillary Clinton, has already been outed as perhaps the least qualified president in modern history.  He has no government experience, and seems to lack even a vague awareness of how our political system functions.  But most alarmingly, he seems either completely ignorant of, or completely hostile to the U.S. Constitution.  And to think, he has been running for president

Read More

Pence’s Piety: The True Terror of Trump’s Triumph

Disappointed, but not shocked, I have remained quiet since election day because I didn’t want to say I Told You So.  I warned about the hazards of nominating Hillary Clinton, who could not generate the excitement and enthusiasm to beat the populist Trump.  I warned about the mainstream media’s overconfidence that might have the effect of dampening voter turnout in swing states.  And I warned everyone about underestimating the movement behind Trump’s unlikely rise.  And

Read More

We(ed) the People…DEA Says Screw the People

Another blow was dealt to reasonable and rational drug policy last week when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) declined to re-schedule marijuana, choosing instead to keep the substance on the most restrictive schedule (Schedule I).  In so doing, they are claiming, once again, that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, and no known medical value.  Of course, both of these determinations are completely contrary to ALL the evidence we have available to us, but

Read More

Profiting From Injustice: Addressing Mass Incarceration & Prison Reform

 As a criminal defense lawyer, I have seen the inside of the justice system up close, and am well versed in the lies, misconceptions, inefficiencies and abuses that plague that system.  And I have seen my share of young, non-violent offenders slapped with oppressive prison sentences for relatively minor crimes.  Thankfully, there seems to be a new movement emerging in many parts of the country to reform the criminal justice system, but rest assured that

Read More

Black versus Blue: Brought to You by the War on Drugs

I know a lot of people are trying to cope with a lot of enmity and loss this week.  The police shootings of #Alton Sterling and #PhilandoCastile, followed by the shooting of police officers in Dallas at a Black Lives Matter protest, has left the nation reeling.  People are understandably shaken by the deaths of two more black victims of over-zealous law enforcement.  And people are equally justified in expressing outrage and antipathy toward the

Read More

Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts: the Sneaky Remnants of Jim Crow

Greetings Citizens of Earth: I was recently asked a question by a concerned citizen about why some states still allow criminal convictions with a non-unanimous jury verdict.  I was immediately reminded of a scene in the 1929 Marx Brothers movie, Animal Crackers, when Groucho Marx’s character asks another character “what is your opinion of Art?” The other character, an art collector, says, very enthusiastically, “I am VERY glad you asked me that…” and Groucho immediately

Read More

Obama’s Legacy: Most Disrespected President Ever.

Greetings Citizens of Earth. Here we go again.  It all started when a little Kenyan boy from Hawaii became President of the United States.  The same Kenyan boy who graduated from Columbia University, earned a law degree from Harvard Law School, practiced as a civil rights attorney and was a law professor at University of Chicago Law School.  He then served three terms in the Illinois Senate before being elected to the United States Senate

Read More

In Memoriam: C. Wayne Beasley

This is my first post in a few months, and I apologize if anyone cares.  Unfortunately, my father passed away recently, and I have been slightly out of sorts. He battled a very long illness, and I am happy that he is, presumably, no longer in conscious pain and discomfort. However, even with that relief, losing a parent is still a painful and disorienting experience. I can’t say that we were extremely close, nor would

Read More

Anatomy of Case XII: To Plea, or Not to Plea…

In the United States, every year tens of millions of people are charged with traffic offenses, misdemeanors and/or felonies in state and federal courts.  Approximately 95% of those cases resolve either through guilty pleas or other pre-trial devices.  In other words, only about 5% of criminal cases actually go to trial.  So prevalent is the guilty plea – almost always by means of a plea bargain – that a rather large body of caselaw and

Read More

Obama’s Violent Record: The Truth About Obama’s Legacy

You don’t have to look very hard to find some kind and gentle soul posting hateful and divisive rhetoric on the internet.  Scroll through the comments section of any news story – and I mean ANY news story, it doesn’t even have to be about anything remotely political – and you will likely find some Obama-hater spewing rancorous prognostications about the collapse of America under the tyrannical rule of a Muslim-communist-dictator from Kenya.  Among the

Read More

Anatomy of a Case Part XI: Urging Suppression

“Ms. Kaffee, cross examination,” announced Judge Waldron from the bench. Danielle Kaffee stood up, picking up her yellow notepad from counsel table, and approached the podium.  She was preparing to cross examine Detective Slade about his observations that led to the arrest and search of Sammie while he was visiting his cousin, Bam Bam.  She wanted to establish that there was “no probable cause” for the arrest of Sammie, and therefore no reason to search

Read More

Anatomy of a Case Part VIII: Eyewitness Testimony

Recently, I had a minor incident with my memory.  As I was getting ready to leave my house for work, I gathered my things, made sure my briefcase was packed, and reached for my keys.  I kissed the missus, and jogged hurriedly out the door.  I got in the car, got situated, and then realized I had no keys.  I though I must have dropped them in the rear floorboard when I put my briefcase

Read More

Anatomy of a Case Part X: Preliminarily, Hearing

On a crisp, late autumn morning, Sammie and Bam Bam appear in front of Judge Chamberlain Waldron, III with their attorneys.  The young assistant district attorney calls the case. “State of Louisiana versus Samuel Adams and Bernard Jones, case no. 515-234, set for Motions this morning.” While Sammy and Bam Bam are walking up to the podium where their attorneys are already standing, Judge Waldron says, “Will the attorneys for the defense make your appearances

Read More

Anatomy of a Case Part IX: Joinder & Severance

This post is perhaps a little out of order, as I was going to discuss Suppression in this chapter, but I was asked a question recently about this subject, and I thought it was interesting.  I was asked why prosecutors choose to charge a criminal defendant with multiple crimes at the same time.  Wouldn’t it be better if the prosecutor charged multiple individual counts so that they could have numerous trials, thereby giving the prosecutor

Read More

Why I Voted For The First Woman President

Happy Election Day everyone!  I hope you are all out exercising your fundamental right to vote today.  I myself have already cast my ballot, and I feel great about my choices, because I was able to vote my conscience today.  I chose to vote for a woman, because frankly it is high time we had one in the Oval Office, after 240 years of male dominance over the levers of power in this great nation. 

Read More

Dear Mrs. Clinton:

Remember There Are Two Terrible Candidates This Year I don’t mean to kick a dead horse here, but it is all anyone talks about these days – the presidential election and the comical cast of characters that have been involved in it.  And I first want to remind everyone how much I loathe Donald Trump and pretty much everything he stands for.  But that is literally all anyone ever talks about – nonstop coverage of

Read More

Glass Houses & Gary Johnson

This election is getting to the point of comedy.  A foul-mouthed, bumbling buffoon.  A hypocritical, underhanded war monger.  A psychopathic, misogynistic white supremacist.  And a Wall Street wolf wearing ill-fitting sheep’s clothing.  Or, Trump, Clinton, Pence and Kaine respectively.  This clown car of deplorables is engaged in a shock and awe campaign of open warfare against each other, and unfortunately the health, wealth and posterity of our entire nation may be unavoidable collateral damage.  How

Read More