The District Court Must Allow the Defense to Weigh In Before Ruling on a 35(b) Sentencing Reduction

 In the redacted case of United States v. ______, the Sixth Circuit addressed a sentencing reduction given to a defendant who provided substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of a murder case unrelated to his federal charges. The defendant was central in convincing another inmate to confess to the murder of his adopted daughter, and that confession led to his prosecution and conviction to life imprisonment. As a result, the government moved for the unnamed defendant to receive a sentence reduction of between twelve and eighteen months.

Before the defense had an opportunity to make an argument about what reduction should be imposed, the district court ordered a twelve-month reduction. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the district court to allow the defense an opportunity to argue for a larger sentence reduction. Based on prior sentencing decisions that addressed reductions, the Court concluded that the defense must be given an opportunity to weigh in; otherwise, the district court commits reversible error in imposing sentence under Rule 35(b). Of note, the Sixth Circuit denied the defense's request to have the case assigned to a new judge on remand, concluding that no bias had been shown.

Judge Batchelder wrote a short dissenting opinion explaining that it was not a violation of Rule 35(b) for the district court to make a sentencing determination before the defense had an opportunity to respond. The judge reached that conclusion based on the "constrained nature" of Rule 35(b) proceedings which - in her view - do away with some of the "adjudicatory formalities."