A federal judge may be quite disinclined to reduce a child *advertiser censored* sentence. For example, pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, downward departures are only allowed in cases of child crimes and sex offenses if the court finds mitigating circumstances, and the guidelines
prohibit a downward departure of any amount for a repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors within the meaning of guideline §4B1.5 (Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Against Minors).
For further self-education, see the 2015 sentencing guidelines
here.
Here are a few examples of downward departures in child *advertiser censored* cases, including the 8th Circuit:
United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming a downward variance in a distribution of child *advertiser censored* case in which: there was only one instance of distribution; the defendant was an older man with a deteriorating medical condition; he had no criminal history; and a medical expert testified that the defendant posed a low risk of recidivism).
United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming downward variance from a guideline range of 41-51 months to five years probation in possession of child *advertiser censored* case based in part on finding that the defendant did not fit the profile of a pedophile, had no history of substance abuse, no interpersonal instability, was motivated and intelligent, and had the continuing support of his family).
United States v. Huckins, 529 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming downward variance in possession of child *advertiser censored* and criminal forfeiture case based on defendants lack of significant criminal history, depression at the time of the offense, short time period in which the offense took place, lack of repeat offending by the defendant after his arrest, significant self-improvement efforts during the year and a half in which he waited to be prosecuted, and that the
defendant was 20 years old when he committed the crime)
United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming a downward variance from 151 to 188 months in prison to 84 months in prison in a child *advertiser censored* case in which the district court found the defendants own history of abuse and abandonment to be one of the worst ever seen by the court).
For further self-education, see the 2015 federal primer on sentencing variances
here.
This leaves to the prosecutor any discretionary deal-making at the charging stage that may be favorable to the defendant. Is Danny Heinrich at the bargaining table now? What might someone like Danny Heinrich be able to produce, more than a quarter century after the Wetterling abduction, that would be of such value to cause a federal prosecutor to agree to reduced criminal charges?
Can you say
habeas corpus?
For an example of a recent federal child *advertiser censored* plea agreement, see Jared Fogels
here.
Prov. 11:14