Q|Nav, LLC recently received the following communication from a powerful local official, and in this business, when the opposing team offers its compliments, it’s noteworthy. That is why we’re excited to share this firsthand account with you here.
Mr. Hoover,
I have reviewed [the attorney’s] proposed proportionality motion prepared in the present case.
And before I go too much further I will add a personal note, to you Mr. Hoover, that prior to this case I had not heard of you or your organization. I have now, however, looked at your website and am impressed by your story and the work you and your team are committed to doing.
I think you, as someone who has come through on the other side with an often unheard perspective, but who as a non-attorney is also not immersed daily in and therefore not scarred by the adversarial nature of the legal battles, is serving an important and underserved role in our system.
I have spent my entire 25 year legal career as a prosecutor, so as much I would like to think of myself as completely objective, because that is my legal, ethical, and moral mandate, I recognize the human brain (or at least the one given this prosecutor) is probably never entirely capable of satisfying that requirement. But I believe I can say I honestly try. I do not, as [the attorney] accused me of yesterday in a motion related to a decades old murder case, perfunctorily “throw smoke at facts.”** I take every position I take because I believe in my heart it is both consistent with the truth and because it is what is the right thing to do for the public as a whole. All this to say, although I recognize you – like criminal defense attorneys – are paid to take a particular position, I appreciate the slightly different lens through which you are positioned to look at these matters.
So, I’ll sum up this somewhat philosophical diversion by saying I agree with and support your mission, recognizing there are undeniably cases and individuals (such as yourself) where society is benefited by reconsidering the justness of a long sentence as the inmate moves beyond and out of the phase of life that produced his/her initial crime.
Now, back to [the defendant’s] specific circumstance. I do not believe it would be appropriate or legal (under the VRA statutes) for me to unilaterally agree to a sentence reduction to 30 years. More than a decade ago I participated in painstakingly involved negotiations that ultimately achieved the result of putting a 25-45 year sentencing range in front of the judge. I thought that resolution achieved a number of objectives. First, contrary to [the attorney’s] legal opinion, it satisfied the legal parameters given to us by the legislature for the applicable crimes.
Second, and by far the most significant, it reflected the considered opinions of what I believe was at least 14 different VRA victims, including a veteran police officer who [the defendant] attempted to kill, as to what an appropriate punishment looked like for this series of alarming crimes.
Third, it reflected my many years of experience trying and negotiating cases of a similar nature in this jurisdiction.
Fourth, it took into consideration [the defendant’s] criminal history, mental condition, and drug use.
And fifth, it gave the judicial branch, who could have rejected it altogether as either too punitive or not punitive enough, a range from which the court was able to impose and communicate his judgement regarding the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct. Not only did the judge, after hearing statements from victims and arguments from the attorneys, conclude the defendant deserved the maximum sentence under the agreement reached by the parties, the judge subsequently denied two motions to reconsider that sentence, finding that the sentence of 45 years was appropriate.
In light of all this, it is my opinion the sentence originally imposed was and is still legal, proportionate, and just. More relevant, it was the opinion of his victims and the judge the sentence imposed was appropriate given the seriousness of his crimes. As a result, I believe the system worked the way it is supposed to in this case. Consistent with that opinion, I believe it would be wholly outside the scope of my legal and ethical role and obligations to agree to a modification at this time.
** I make this reference is a form of a concession that at this moment in time, as much as I may try, I may not be one hundred percent objective based on defense counsel’s very recent challenge to my professional and personal integrity.