The National Association of Assistant US Attorneys has produced a short video (a little over a minute) about the murders of three African Americans, a mother and her two daughters, by Wendell Callahan. Callahan had a violent past, and had been sentenced to federal prison for trafficking in hard drugs (crack cocaine). Nonetheless, he was released early courtesy of Congress's 2010 version of "sentencing reform." But for his early release, his three victims would be alive today.
When one black man, Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO -- a fellow who was 6'4" and weighed 292 pounds -- was shot by a policeman in legal self-defense, the story was the subject of hundreds of outraged national headlines. When the three defenseless black people in Columbus, OH got their throats slit by a man who earned his way to prison, but then was released early as a "low level, low-risk" prospect, not a single component of the national media has written a news story about it.
Lesson of the day: Black lives matter plenty when they service the liberal criminal justice narrative that Amerika stinks. Otherwise...well, hey, look, chill out.
The video is here.
This post leaves out that members of the video's producer, USAO of S.D. Ohio, agreed that the 100 month minimum guidelines sentence recommended after the applicable sentencing reform [the sentence Callahan ultimately received] "would be reasonable" for Callahan; that the USAO elected not to seek an enhancement for Callahan's gun possession, and apparently agreed that Callahan's "early release did not present a danger to the safety of the public."
Lesson of the video: NAAUSA will take advantage of political opportunity in a tragedy regardless of the role its membership played in that tragedy
1. Please name any NAAUSA member in USAO for the SDOH who signed off on the sentence reduction. And "name" means "name."
I don't think you will, in which case your entire comment implodes. But I will stand to be corrected if you come up with a name.
2. The people on your side are ceaselessly demanding evidence. Fine. Here it is. The Callahan case is evidence of the horrible costs of sentencing reform, costs that your side's years of phony argument never, ever made clear.
BTW, are you saying that this is the last such episode? Will you give your word? If not, how many more dead children should the country tolerate in order to go easier on sentencing thugs?
Melissa --
Yesterday, you wrote, "Lesson of the video: NAAUSA will take advantage of political opportunity in a tragedy regardless of the role its membership played in that tragedy."
I am still waiting for you to produce the name of a single member of NAAUSA who "played a role in that tragedy."
Let's see it. Either that or withdraw your rancid accusation and apologize.
Being pro criminal means never having to say you are sorry.
Bingo!
This is one of the arguments for requiring people who make specific accusations to sign with their true names.
I might add that "Melissa" simultaneously accused me of a significant misleading omission by not revealing NAAUSA's supposed hypocrisy.
If she shows up here again, she'll be apologizing for that one, too.
I stand by my comment and the absence of a specific name doesn't negate culpability. (Just think of it in the the same vein as when the USAO office issues a press release on an indictment, but no release is forthcoming in the event of an acquittal).
The NAAUSA video excerpts the motion that indicates the USAO office agreed with reducing the sentence by ten months and that Callahan was not a threat to society. Despite that NAAUSA advocates for AUSA's its video omits that part of the very motion it films and proceeds to attribute all the fault to Congress. You don't have to pay dues for the NAAUSA to represent you.
To the extent this incident is used in formulating sentencing policy the video is biased and of limited utility other than stoking the fires. Congress does not warrant full responsibility as the video suggests; the judicial and executive branch deservedly share in the blame.
I wonder if Callahan may not have slipped through the cracks of the USAO and courthouse if our sentencing system had a better means of prioritizing offenders as a conviction for dealing 5 grams of crack apparently does not warrant much attention as evidenced by the docket report.
* if you can point out where the NAAUSA condemned the AUSA's acquiescence in the Callahan case I'll retract and modify my comment, but the inference I draw from the video is that they have no intention of doing so and are happier to gloss over that fact to maximize the political utility of the case.
Melissa --
Your comment has all the insight of a statement that the UAW speaks for GM. Do you expect to be taken seriously?
As you can't possibly help knowing, NAAUSA is a private organization with no governmental authority. It OPPOSES the Justice Department's (and thus necessarily the USAO's) support for mass sentencing reduction. Your belated attempt here to conflate NAAUSA with the US Attorney's Office is absurd and dishonest.
Contrary to your accusation, absolutely no one in NAAUSA signed, approved or spoke up in favor of Callahan's early release motion. To remind everyone, this is what you said (bold lettering added by me): "Lesson of the video: NAAUSA will take advantage of political opportunity in a tragedy regardless of the role ITS MEMBERSHIP played in that tragedy."
Do you know what "its membership" means?
No member of NAAUSA had anything to do with the individual Callahan case, and, more generally, NAAUSA opposes legislation that makes early release possible. But you go right ahead and try to pin this on NAAUSA.
Good grief.
You also say, "To the extent this incident is used in formulating sentencing policy the video is biased and of limited utility other than stoking the fires."
That's just evasive nonsense. The video recounts that two little girls and their mother are dead, yet would be alive today BUT FOR Congress's 2010 version of "sentencing reform," which is what made Callahan's early release possible.
Kindly show where anything in the above statement is false.
To be sure, other actors had their hand in it. The main one, conspicuously unmentioned by you, was the defense lawyer, who, in something he could not possibly have believed was true, made the factual assertion that Callahan did not pose a danger to the public.
Was that true? Do you care? Did he care? Is direct lying now a permitted part of defense "advocacy?"
And apparently, the US Attorney's Office (i.e., the branch office of Obama's Justice Department) went along with it. (I will assume this although I have seen no government pleading). If you're saying that is a scandal and a disgrace, we are in agreement.
And then there's the feckless and lazy judge -- as there will be future feckless and lazy judges releasing hoodlums if we get yet more "sentencing reform" -- who also went along with defense counsel's mendacity.
Now three people are dead.
That you belligerently stand by your false accusation against NAAUSA says nothing about it but plenty about you.
P.S. You're a criminal defense lawyer, aren't you?
1. according to your comment, actions of the class of an advocacy group should not be imputed to the advocacy group representing the class. I disagree, I think the circumstances in this case warrant doing so to establish the video producer's bias. Obviously, the NAAUSA is not responsible for the deaths and never intended to convey that. I do believe the NAAUSA is engaging in political opportunism that obfuscates its role in the debate. . Individual AUSAs wield power over the length of imprisonment for violent offenders in their charging decisions and advocacy to the judge. To act as if congressionally imposed mandatory minimums bind an AUSA is ridiculous. But this is what the NAAUSA video tries to convey by faulting solely congress.
2. I never stated that the Callahan incident (I.e. An offender with a significant criminal history obtaining early release through a sentencing reduction) was irrelevant. I found the video of little utility in the policy debate. The case itself is relevant and I have never suggested otherwise, the nature and extent of its relevancy was not the point of the comment.
3. I'm not sure your statement is true, although I'm not sure it's false either. Callahan received the highest recommended sentence originally (150 months). It was remanded for re sentencing apparently due to the district court considering only one factor to the exclusion of all the others. (The unpublished 6th circuit opinion isn't a beacon of clarity on the point). At re sentencing, presumably considering all the factors, the judge sentenced him to less than the maximum recommended guideline. From this it's possible with good time accrued it was actually the reduction after considering all the factors that *may* have enabled him to commit this crime.
3. I don't know if the defense lawyer's statement was true. I tried to locate the circumstances of Callahan's prior state convictions and anything on his prison behavior, but couldn't find anything. I didn't see any motion from the USAO contradicting the defense lawyer's motion (possibly a con of an overburdened system that heavily relies on plea negotiations largely shielded from public disclosure).
4. I also find your comments that individuals advocating for sentencing reform are indifferent to the murder of children to reveal more about you than it does about sentence reform advocates.