IN DEFENSE OF PAUL MANAFORT

Paul Manafort is sixty-nine years old. He has no prior record. He worked and created a distinguished career for himself in politics until the last several years when he sold his loyalty and common sense for money. We are no fans of Paul Manafort. He went to work for an incompetent nincompoop only to enrich himself and place himself close to the seat of power. 

Manafort went to trial on his case and lost and because he lost he is facing twenty years in prison. Let's say that slowly. A sixty-nine year old man who was convicted of his first non-violent crime has sentencing guidelines that recommend a judge sentence him to twenty years in prison.

What kind of legal system does that to one of its citizens? 

Lets look at the  3553(a) factors (you state court judges can click on over to the Nickelodeon site now, this is federal legal stuff). 

(1) 

the nature and circumstances of the  offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

 
Manafort has no priors.  Let's skip  to the other stuff for a moment, 

(2) the need for the sentence imposed—

(A)

to reflect the seriousness of the offense  to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

We are a fairly well read and educated blogger. We cannot tell you specifically what Manafort did. He met with some Russians. He got paid some money. He moved it around to hide it (a 1956 or 1957 money laundering count probably). But what specifically did he do? And if we cannot tell you, how can a trucker in Boise, Idaho, be expected to know and be deterred from meeting with Russians to influence American elections? How can the naturalized Mexican/American hotel housekeeper in Las Vegas, who works two jobs and has two kids to support as a single mom be expected not to fly to Paris or Helsinki and meet with Russian diplomats if we aren't sure what Manafort did. In other words, there really is no need for deterrence here. If the Uber driver/school teacher in Baltimore wants to meet with the Russians and launder ten million bucks and influence the next election, he's not going to worry about what Manafort got.  

(B)

to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

 

See above. 

(C)

to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

 

See above. Is anyone truly worried that if Manafort got a five year sentence he would be up to his old tricks on  Mike Pence or Jenna Bush's 2024 presidential campaign? 

(D)

to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

Admittedly Manafort needs a college level course in ethics and the US Constitution. But he doesn't need it in prison. 

The fact of the matter is that our federal legal system is designed to crush defendants who go to trial and lose. There is no understanding of why the crime was committed. There is no recognition that we do not need to warehouse sixty-nine year old disgraced defendants. There is just the crushing monolith of the US Government steamrolling defendants who aren't wise enough to hire David O Markus and his firm. 

Make no mistake that Manafort's case is another straw on the back of the sixth amendment right to trial. Each defendant who has the audacity to force the crown to prove it's accusations, and each defendant who loses and is given a multi-decades sentence becomes another straw breaking the back of the right to trial. We are rapidly approaching a time where attorneys have more skill and experience arguing the nuances of the enhancements under the guidelines or reasons for a downward variance than have the experience to stare down a federal agent on cross examination because they know they are lying. 

We are going to rue the day.