Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Or Does This Make Any Sense?

[Reprinted from Issues & Views Year 2000]

During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress and many state legislatures passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which means that judges are forced to hand out fixed sentences, without parole, to people convicted of certain crimes.

Such mandatory sentences must be imposed, regardless of a person's role in the crime, or other mitigating factors. Prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to decide what charges to bring, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, and ultimately, to determine what the final sentence will be. (Often, the sentencing judge expresses regret at having to impose a long sentence against his will.)

The only way a judge can sentence below a mandatory minimum is if the defendant provides "substantial assistance" or cooperation in the prosecution of someone else. This means that if the defendant implicates someone else (rightly or wrongly) in his crime or some other crime, he stands a chance of escaping the mandatory sentence.

Even then, prosecutors, not judges, get to determine whether this "assistance" is valuable enough to warrant a reduction in sentence. Mandatory sentences require offenders to serve their entire sentence without parole.

Thousands of Americans are doomed to years in prison (some for decades), not because they are hardened, recidivist criminals or because they have committed malicious crimes. They are there because of laws that were designed to win a drug war that can never be won.

Following are cases of three such unfortunates. In two cases, note the sentencing judge's comments about the stiff sentences being imposed.

Joann Zedler

In 1995, Joann Zedler called police to her home on a domestic violence call about her husband, who then fled. As police searched for him, they found a crop of marijuana growing on the property, along with several guns.

Joann was arrested and had to forfeit the family's property to the government. For residing in a place with drugs, she received a mandatory sentence of 10 years. When her husband was caught, he too was arrested and sentenced to 10 years.

This is what the judge said when sentencing Joann, who had no prior offenses: "When I read the pre-sentence report, I thought to myself this just doesn’t seem right. On the other hand, it’s the law. There’s absolutely no question in my mind that these are severe mandatory minimums. Ten years is a long time."

Johnny Patillo

In 1992, an acquaintance of Johnny Patillo offered him $500 to deliver a package to a Federal Express office in Los Angeles, to be shipped to Dallas. Although Patillo suspected that the package contained illegal drugs, he did not know what type or quantity of drugs. Patillo was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in jail. At the time of his arrest, he worked for a cable television company in Inglewood, California, and was four classes short of graduating from San Diego State University.

Here are some of the judge's remarks when sentencing Patillo, who had no prior arrests or involvement with the law:

"Statutory mandatory minimum sentences create injustice because the sentence is determined without looking at the particular defendant and making no allowance for the circumstances of any particular case. Under this sledgehammer approach, it can make no difference whether defendant actually owned the drugs with which he was caught, or whether, at a time when he had an immediate need for cash, he was slickered into taking the risk of being caught with someone else's drugs."

Marsha Cunningham

Marsha Cunningham shared an apartment for five months with her boyfriend Miguel, whom she seldom saw. She worked for temporary agencies and spent little time at home. She learned too late that Miguel was a dealer in illegal drugs. The police had him put under surveillance and he was seen entering and exiting Marsha's apartment and driving her car.

However, they never saw him with Marsha. They finally observed him participating in several drug deals away from the apartment, while Marsha was at work. There was never any evidence that Marsha had participated in any way in Miguel's drug deals. But when the police searched Marsha's apartment, they found bags of Miguel's merchandise.

Both Marsha and Miguel were arrested. In 1998, she was sentenced to 15 years and he to 17 years in jail. Because Marsha had insisted on her innocence and, therefore, did not offer "substantial assistance" against Miguel, her sentence was enhanced beyond the 10 years she might have received if she had turned informer. For pleading innocent, she was automatically considered to be "lying under oath" and "obstructing justice."

For information about organizations that are challenging unjust sentencing laws, contact: Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), 1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 2006; (202) 822-6700.

Also see the websites of Media Awareness Project, and in New York State, see Drop the Rock, a campaign against the Rockefeller drug laws, and

Religious Leaders For a More Just and Compassionate Drug Policy, members of clergy who have joined the movement for drug reform; P.O. Box 282471, Nashville, TN 37228; (615) 327-9775.

A now defunct group of churches and religious leaders, the Coalition for Jubilee Clemency, was active during the 1990s. You can still view their letter of appeal to the Clinton administration here.

Copyright 2001 Issues & Views