PULL THE TRIGGER: United States v. Corner and Judicial Discretion in Drug Sentencing Under the First Step Act

There are drug offenders sentenced under the outdated 100-to-1 powder-to-crack disparity. The ratio represents the amount of powder cocaine versus crack cocaine necessary to trigger the federal mandatory-minimum sentence. The First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA ’18”) makes the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA ’10”) guidelines retroactive. Under FSA ’10, the ratio is 18-to-1. FSA ‘18 provides retroactive relief for drug offenders who did not benefit from FSA ’10. Sentencing reduction under FSA ‘18 is important because the crack-cocaine disparity has had a negative impact on the African American community due to the disproportionate application to Black offenders. Sentencing before the Fair Sentencing Act was widely criticized as racially motivated and lacking empirical support. The progressive legislation is ineffective without proper exercise of judicial discretion. The author uses legislation, scholarly articles analyzing the legislation and its impacts, United States Sentencing Commission (“USSC”) reports, an informal interview with a prior offender, federal court cases, articles by reform advocates, and the appellate court decision in United States v. Corner. The legislation, USSC reports, and scholarly articles indicate lack of empirical support for the 100-to-1 rule. USSC reports continuously advocated for a decreased ratio and support the theory that the disparity is racially motivated. The prior-offender interview provides a first-hand account of the application of the outdated disparity. The reform-advocate articles support the conclusion that the disparity is a grave injustice that was racially motivated. All research indicates the importance of proper application of FSA ’18. The author concludes that the appellate court came to the correct conclusion in determining the level of judicial discretion in drug sentencing. In United States v. Corner, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted FSA ’18 and the discretion vested in district court judges considering sentence reduction. The court concluded that courts must determine offender eligibility and impose a new sentence under the new guidelines. The court held that district court judges maintain discretion to grant the sentence reduction.