PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release Contact: Laura Jones
September 17, 2004 O: 202-822-6700, Cell: 202-425-4659
Judge Defers Decision on Important Mandatory Sentencing Case:
Will “Take Arguments Under Advisement”
SALT LAKE CITY, UT: Judge Paul Cassell (D. Utah) tonight announced that he would “take arguments under advisement” in the case of Weldon Angelos, who faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 55 five years in federal prison for a first conviction.
Expressing concern about the 14th amendment equal protection clause of the Constitution, Judge Cassell distributed a laundry list of violent crimes such as the rape of a ten year old (135 months)and an aircraft hijacking (293 months) that would receive lesser sentences than the one Angelos faces (757 months). The judge scheduled the next sentencing meeting for November 16, 2004.
“In other words,” wrote Judge Cassell, “a forty year old guilty of two prior serious violent felonies and now found guilty of first degree murder is eligible for parole at the age of 70 after only serving 30 years of a mandatory life sentence…Assuming a 15 percent reduction in his sentence for good behavior at the earliest, Weldon Angelos could be released from prison at the age of 77 after having served 53 years.”
A crowd of sentencing reform advocates and families holding a banner and signs outside urged Judge Cassell to sentence Angelos fairly and proportionally.
Cassell’s decision came amidst widespread opposition to the mandatory sentence. In a “friend of the court” brief, 29 former federal judges and U.S. Attorneys argued that the 61-year mandatory minimum sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime and thus unconstitutional. The ruling came nearly one year after a September 2003 public opinion poll by Dan Jones & Associates, Inc found that 64 percent of Utahns believe that judges, not lawmakers, should determine appropriate prison sentence.
“It seems clear that Judge Cassell recognizes that this is an unfair sentence,” said Angelos’ defense attorney Jerome Mooney. “We’re waiting to see if he’ll find it to be an unconstitutional sentence, and we’re confident that he’ll give it careful consideration.”
MORE
“Judge Cassell is struggling with gross disproportionality of this mandatory minimum sentence,” said Families Against Mandatory Minimums president Julie Stewart. “These laws are deeply flawed in their application. Contrary to the Government’s assertion during argument, Congress certainly did not intend for a first time marijuana dealer possessing a gun to serve a longer sentence than a rapist. This case is classic example of why judges should have the authority to consider individual factors in sentencing.”
Of the 160,000 federal prisoners in 2001, 55 percent were drug offenders. More than half of those receiving mandatory drug sentences were first-time offenders, and nearly 90 percent were nonviolent. Mandatory sentences are rarely imposed on the drug “kingpins” for whom they were intended. Nearly nine out of 10 drug offenders were low- or medium- level participants in the drug trade.
“We are nervous,” said Angelos’ wife Zandrah Angelos, the mother of his two small children. “We’re afraid our children will grow up without their daddy. I know he was guilty of selling marijuana, but the punishment should fit the crime. The time he’s facing doesn’t make any sense. He could serve more time than some really serious offenders.”
###
Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national non-partisan non-profit
organization that promotes just sentencing policies.