WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court expressed skepticism during oral arguments in Fernandez vs. United States over a New York man’s bid for compassionate release Wednesday morning.
After lower courts rulings went back-and-forth on whether to make changes to Joe Fernandez’ two life sentences for a 2000 double-murder, Fernandez’ case highlights the practice of compassionate release, a process by which inmates are considered for early release from prison due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, legislation advising judges on how to deliver an appropriate sentence.
During oral arguments, both sides scrutinized the Sentencing Reform Act and a judge’s discretion for granting compassionate release under the broad purview of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” They also weighed whether The First Step Act, codified in 2018 to improve the criminal justice system, applied to Fernandez’ case. The act provided the legal basis for Fernandez’ argument that courts can consider relevant information when making changes to a sentence unless the Constitution or Congress deems otherwise.
Fernandez was given two life sentences in late 2014 for a murder-for-hire scheme in the Bronx involving a drug ring leader ordering the murder of two Mexican cartel members seeking millions of dollars worth of debt for a cocaine shipment. Patrick Darge, Fernandez’ cousin who asked him to serve as a backup shooter, maintained that when he attempted to shoot one of the cartel members, his gun jammed and Fernandez fired 14 shots that dealt the fatal blows. Darge admitted during cross-examination that he lied to authorities in previous cases, casting doubt on the reliability of his testimony.
In comparison, Darge and Fernandez’s co-defendants, who were not sentenced for murder, received significantly lighter sentences. Through it all, Fernandez has maintained his innocence.
In 2021, Fernandez filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing “a strong basis to question the correctness of the verdict” in addition to outlining “significant sentencing disparities”, which was granted by a district court and found that it could consider the disparity in sentencing between Fernandez and his co-conspirators as “extraordinary and compelling.”
In 2022, a district court judge expressed “a certain disquiet” over Fernandez’ harsh sentence. However, the decision to allow the disparity in revising his sentence was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sentencing Commission was unable to update guidelines under the First Step Act.
The district court judge’s skepticism raised questions about whether trial error exists in the case, and, if so, whether it falls under the purview of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Fernandez’ attorney Benjamin Gruenstein argued that having a court identify an error is enough to justify reducing a sentence under the code. He also said that “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under the Imposition of a Sentence code.
“If a court finds an error that significantly increased the length of the defendant’s sentence, that fact can contribute to a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the sentence,” he said.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act, inmates are typically considered for release from prison in dire scenarios, some of which include chronic illnesses, extenuating family circumstances like the death of a loved one and age-related health conditions.
“Our position is modest,” Gruenstein said. “We recognize that personal circumstances are common reasons that courts find to be extraordinary and compelling. But we reject the government’s view that courts can never consider an error or unfairness in a defendant’s sentence in that analysis,” he added.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether trial error has ever been the underlying reason for a verdict.
Gruenstein responded that there have been “very few” instances where that has been the case.
Until 2018, only the director of the Bureau of Prisons had the authority to invoke the compassionate release provision of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked whether it was appropriate for the director to seek a reduction in sentencing because the evidence was insufficient.
“Doesn’t that seem to be far outside of the area of the director of the Bureau of Prisons’ expertise?” he asked.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited that there have been instances where rehabilitation has influenced the reduction of a sentence, mentioning the U.S. versus Banks case of 1977.
However, she said she was “troubled” by whether the “disquiet” exhibited by the District Court judge could be identified as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason
“I was a district court judge, and I had a great deal of respect for the disquiet that sometimes judges feel. It happens to every district court judge. There’s a case where you really struggle. But can we, in the facts of this case, denote that that is an extraordinary circumstance?” she asked.
According to Shanna Rifkin, General Counsel at FAMM — formally named Families Against Mandatory Minimums — and a leading expert on compassionate release, there was no legal infrastructure to make changes to Fernandez’ sentence when his case was reviewed in 2021 due to COVID-19. She added that the observation of an existing sentencing guideline was at the discretion of the courts.
“You had district courts across the country basically able to use their discretion for the first time to decide what might be extraordinary and compelling outside of the confines of the traditional ‘extraordinary’ as defined by the Sentencing Commission,” she said.
An organization that advocates for sentencing reform, FAMM filed an amicus brief advising the court to support Fernandez’ argument.
Rifkin says that cases like Fernandez’ that involve violent offenses are typically tied to harsher sentences.
“In an offense that involves a murder-for-hire or something that was violent, district court judges will weigh that more heavily,” Rifkin said.
In his opening remarks, Department of Justice Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin said that Gruenstein was attempting to loosen the structure of how judges impose the Sentencing Reform Act.
“Section 3582 [Imposition of a Sentence code] is a narrow exception to sentencing finality that allows a court to reduce a valid sentence in limited exceptional circumstances…I think what you’ve just heard and what’s in their briefs is a proposal to make it instead an open-ended loophole to challenge the validity of sentences continuously through a potentially endless series of collateral attacks on the criminal judgement,” he said.
Feigin later added that the claim by Fernandez’ attorney that his sentence was invalid was false
“It doesn’t really make any logical sense to reduce a valid sentence because of a procedurally or substantively deficient claim, the point of the claim being that the sentence was actually invalid,” he said.
Following oral arguments, the Supreme Court will hold an internal meeting to discuss the case. Afterwards, Chief Justice John Roberts will assign a justice to write the majority opinion.
