In United States v. Earnest Adams, the Sixth Circuit confirmed the obvious: courts should sentence defendants based upon credible information. Ernest Adams is a seventy-one-year old opiate addict with a lengthy criminal history (approximately twenty prior convictions) and an even lengthier history of drug abuse. Mr. Adams ultimately received a five year federal sentence an a three year term of supervised release. After repeatedly testing positive for opiates, the United States Probation Office ultimately recommended that the District Court revoke Mr. Adams's supervised release. Mr. Adams subsequently admitted his violation, and the District Court revoked his supervised release.
During sentencing, the parties, and the District Court, spent a significant time discussing Mr. Adams's lengthly history of drug abuse. The Government apparently caught the District Court's eye, however, by arguing that a shorter sentence would not prove effective by claiming that there was evidence that the brains of addicted persons take at least eighteen months to "reset," i.e. to break them of their addiction. Not coincidentally, the District Court sentenced Mr. Adams to eighteen months imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.
On appeal, Mr. Adams argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he argued that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable by relying upon the Government's "reset" argument, by sentencing him to a term of imprisonment that would help him gain access to the RDAP program, and by concluding that the United States Sentencing Commission's recent recidivism study was limited to violent offenders.
The Government audaciously responded that a defendant "does not have a due-process right 'to be sentenced based on accurate information...beyond the facts of the defendant's own actions and criminal record.'" The Court summarily rejected this argument. Of particular importance to the Court was the District Court's reliance upon the Government's "reset" argument. Noting that the Government did not cite a specific study or provide support for its assertion either during the sentencing hearing or in its appellate brief, the Court concluded that Mr. Adams's sentence was procedurally unreasonable because he District Court erred in relying upon an unsubstantiated assertion that had "the veneer of accuracy due to its supposed status as a product of scientific research." Because the District Court based its sentence on the Government's erroneous "reset" argument, the Court also concluded that Mr. Adams's sentence was also substantively unreasonable since it based his sentence on rehabilitative grounds. The Court vacated Mr. Adams's sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing.
Although this author pokes fun of the Government's response here, one can ascribe sincere concern by the District Court toward Mr. Adams and his struggle with addiction. Here is to hoping that the District Court, and Mr. Adams, can fashion a sentence upon remand that will truly help him beat his addiction and avoid further trouble.