Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

Adjusted crack sentences to be applied retroactively

In the past, the difference between the drug crimes sentencing of cocaine and crack was a legal and political talking point that demonstrated the unfairness of treating two similar illegal drugs differently based on the users of the drugs. Under the Obama Administration the sentencing laws addressing crack cocaine were rewritten but did not affect those currently in prison for crack cocaine crimes. Recently, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to retroactively reduce the prison terms of prisoners serving time for crack cocaine.

Because of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s decision last week to retroactively ease crack cocaine sentences, thousands of prisoners could see their time in prison reduced by several years. As many as 12,040 prisoners could be affected. Inmates first sentenced in 1991 and beyond for crack cocaine crimes could apply for the reduced sentences.

Under the old law, an individual possessing five grams of crack faced a minimum prison term of five years. Possession of 50 grams brought a minimum of 10 years. In comparison, possession of 500 grams and 5,000 grams of powder cocaine brought minimum terms of five years and 10 years respectively. The harsher crack cocaine sentencing law was designed as a disincentive in more violent urban areas. It was also believed that crack cocaine was more addictive than powder cocaine.

Research demonstrated crack cocaine was no more addictive than powder cocaine and the difference in sentence terms created allegations of racism. The majority of people serving time for crack are black and the majority of those serving time for cocaine are white or Latino.

Under the new law an individual possessing 28 grams of crack cocaine faces five years and someone possessing 280 grams of crack faces 10. The sentencing terms for powder cocaine remain the same.

Federal judges will decide the approval of reduced sentences on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as whether the prisoner has been rehabilitated or deemed dangerous will be considered. On average sentences will be reduced by about three years.

Source: The Wall Street Journal, “Lower crack sentences to apply retroactively,” Gary Fields, 7/1/11

Max Keller image
Attorney Max Keller
Max Keller

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Cinematic Court of Law and Justice Trial Proceedings. Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.
Court of Justice Trial. Pre-Trial Motions Hearing

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.
Man in handcuffs. Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.