What tiger King tells us about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
JOE EXOITIC SCORES AN APPELLATE VICTORY
Joe Exotic AKA Joseph Maldonado-Passage (Maldanado) the gregarious and quirky Netflix star turned convicted felon received a gift from from the 10th Circuit court of appeals. Maldonado plotted to murder Carole Baskin, the equally bizarre self-proclaimed animal rights activist. After being convicted at trial and receiving a relatively stiff federal sentence for his murder-for-hire plot Joe’s legal team scored a minor victory. On July 14, 2021 a three judge panel of the 10th Circuit determined that he should be re-sentenced and returned his case to the trial court.
Joe Exotic v. Carole Baskin
For those unfamiliar with the early COVID Netflix docudrama that took the meme-sphere by storm, Maldanado owned what might have been the nation’s largest population of big cats in captivity in Oklahoma. Carole Baskin, the perfect arch nemesis for this tale, was a self proclaimed animal-rights activist who purportedly fought for legislation prohibiting the private possession of big cats. Carole owned cats too, but she held them in captivity under the pretext of an animal rescue. In a slick effort to corner the “big cat” market, Carole set out on a campaign to defame Maldanado and incite this clearly unstable man’s passion. Rivalry intensified after Baskin sued Maldonado-Passage for copyright and trademark infringement and won a multi-million dollar judgment. Maldanado responded by firing a barrage of violent threats at Baskin. When the threats didn’t stop Baskin and her team of animal rights crusaders, he did what any self respecting Oklahoma “big cat” habitat owner would do - he put out a hit on Baskin. Actually he put out two hits - but one was through an undercover FBI agent which lead to his arrest.
In typical Government fashion, Joe Exotic was indicted not just for the murder-for-hire plot but also a host of federal crimes such as using interstate facilities in the commission of a murder for hire plot and a wide range of wildlife crimes. The indictment spanned twenty-one counts and a jury convicted him on all counts. He was sentenced to 264 months in prison. That’s 22 years if you don’t want to do the math.
JOE EXOTIC’s APPEAL
On appeal Maldanado makes two claims. First, he argued that Carole Baskin, a listed government witness, was permitted to attend the entire trial. Second he argued that the trial court failed to sentence him for the conduct as a whole and instead inflated his sentence by sentencing him on separate offenses and stacking the prison time. This is what is known in the federal sentencing arena as “grouping”. The appellate court dispensed with the first claim with the fact that Baskin was a crime victim and is protected by a federal law called the Crime Victim’s Rights Act which allows her to appear at a trial in which she is a victim. But the second argument had much more merit.
Federal criminal sentencing is driven by federal sentencing guidelines. Instead of a judge simply picking a sentence somewhere between zero and the statutory maximum for the offense, the probation department calculates a “guideline” range using the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. That manual contains complex instructions on how sentencing guidelines should be calculated and their complexity has tripped up may a federal judge - including Joe’s judge.
Remember, Joe engaged in two murder for hire plots. One with an employee and the second with an undercover FBI agent. He was charged separately for both. At sentencing the Government argued that these counts should not be “grouped” meaning that he should receive separate sentencing consideration for both offenses. Grouped, he would receive a sentence of 210 to 262 months and ungrouped he would receive a sentence of 262 to 327 months. Federal courts have direction from the Sentencing Guidelines Manual that offenses that involve “substantially the same harm” should be grouped especially where they involve the same victim and are connected by a common criminal objective.
Here, the harm would have been the same. Had Joe been successful there only would have been one death - that of Carole Baskin. The Appellate court properly recognized that Baskin did not sustain “multiple, separate instances of fear and risk of harm”. Maldanado’s case was then sent back for resentencing. All Joe really could have hoped for was a slightly lower sentence with the new application of the guidelines.
Joe Exotic’s resentencing
Joe’s case went back to the trial court for resentencing and yet again Carole Baskin was sitting in the gallery with her husband Howard Baskin. The resentencing didn’t just deal with the “grouping” issue, when a case is sent back for resentencing its generally a complete redo of the entire sentencing hearing. But this time, supporters packed the courtroom with some wearing animal print masks and shirts that read “free Joe Exotic”. Despite fresh appeals for a lighter sentence the judge did exactly what everyone expected, he offered a slightly lower sentence which was fashioned by “grouping” the two murder plots together.
Flaws in the federal SENTENCING guidelines
While not directly raised as an issue in Joe’s sentencing, his case reveals deep flaws with the United States Sentencing Guidelines. What should be a heartfelt decision by a judge faced with the duty of protecting society and ensuring just punishment has turned into a myopic calculation of various factors created by a commission that does not know the defendant, the facts of the case, and cannot weigh the best way to protect society. Federal Sentencing, because of the guidelines, start with the invalid presumption that the best way to protect society is to incarcerate people. And because the guidelines drive such an analysis, trial courts and appellate courts must follow in suit. This is precisely why federal sentences are much higher than state sentences. But should the length of punishment be determined based on who does the prosecuting? Absolutely not, society is no more harmed by the murder-for-hire plot simply because the feds decided to take the case. Instead of a realistic analysis of whether the punishments Joe Exotic received for the crime fit into our notions of just punishment, appellate courts are left to wrangle with the application of chapters, subchapters, application notes, and sentencing tables. This is not what justice looks like. And yes, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) which permits a judge to offer a lower sentence based on the individual characteristic of the defendant offers some relief - but not much. The 2020 Federal Sentencing Commission Annual Report states that 73.7% of all federal defendants received a sentence within the harshly calculated federal sentencing guidelines. There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this means that 73.7% of defendants were sentenced by an algorithm.
Do we as a country trust our judges so little that we are not willing to give them discretion within the statutory maximum to offer an appropriate sentence?