One often hears the term “sentencing guidelines” when following a federal criminal case. But what are they and how do they work?
The guidelines are for federal judges to use in sentencing defendants convicted of federal crimes so there is some consistency from court to court across the country, says John R. Mitchell, award-winning attorney in the Taft Law Firm’s Compliance, Investigations, White-Collar Defense and Commercial litigation practices.
The guidelines are established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission consisting of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. The guidelines also are reviewed periodically by the commission to see if any of the guidelines need to be changed.
The guidelines are intended to provide fairness and consistency, to reduce disparities by preventing arbitrary or biased sentencing, to provide transparency for the public, and to give judges some structure in fashioning the right sentence.
The guidelines originally were mandatory but since 1987 they have become advisory to judges. This flexibility allows judges some discretion in sentencing convicted individuals.
Attorney Mitchell explains, in depth, on this edition of Next Witness…Please the key components of the guidelines. A judge must first consider the seriousness of the offense considering the nature of the crime, whether a weapon was used, and the harm to the victim.
Secondly, a judge must consider the defendant’s criminal history – whether the defendant has a past criminal record.
Finally, a judge must look at a Sentencing Table or Sentencing Grid. This table takes into consideration the offense level and the criminal history of the defendant to arrive at a recommended sentence of prison, fines, or probation.
The use of sentencing guidelines by the prosecution and the defense, often creates incentives for a negotiated guilty plea in a matter – with sentencing recommendations to the judge. That often avoids a trial Mitchell says.
Some states have sentencing guidelines for state crimes but not all.

Judges, both federal and state, are increasingly under attack and are becoming targets of abuse and even violence from citizens and politicians alike.
Sometimes, state legislatures target judges for punishment for First Amendment speech. One such case is happening in Ohio.
On Oct. 21, two members of the Ohio House filed a joint resolution demanding that a Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Municipal Court judge resign immediately or be brought before the General Assembly for impeachment proceedings.
Judge Ted N. Berry is being targeted for his social media comments after the death of conservative leader Charlie Kirk. Judge Berry is the son of the first African American Mayor of Cincinnati.
Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) and DJ Swearingen (R-Huron) claim that Judge Berry made inappropriate comments. They site three.: First, “So, a white guy killed him! Color it KARMA.” Second, “Rest in Hatred & Division!” and finally “How’s he feel about gun violence and gun control in Hell, now?”
Matthews and Swearingen claim that these statements show a clear “personal bias or prejudice” and therefore, Judge Berry should be removed from the bench.
This legislative action bypasses the usual disciplinary processes conducted and managed by the Ohio Supreme Court and makes this whole free speech issue political.
Sponsor testimony was given to the resolution in the House General Government Committee on Nov. 4, but no further action has been taken.
Some observers see this resolution as a political stunt to silence judges since Judge Berry’s term of office ends on Jan. 4, 2026.
This edition of Next Witness…Please examines this legislative action and other attempts to curtail the free speech rights of judges and to target them if they do not follow the conservative path.

As President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to target his political foes with criminal indictments, the topic of vindictive prosecutions is making headlines.
Currently the judicial landscape is strewn with cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Lettia James, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and others less well known.
Special grand juries are being formed to investigate former President Barrack Obama’s officials and other so-called “enemies” of President Trump.
Others on the “hit list” are former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, Congressman Eric Swalwell and more. The list seems endless.
Normally successfully claiming “vindictive prosecution” is difficult because defendants must prove genuine animus against them by the prosecution.
However, in the case involving Comey, he is attacking the issue of vindictive prosecution at four levels. First, he is saying that his prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed and is holding her office illegally.
Secondly, he claims that there were grievous errors committed by current FBI agents in testifying before the grand jury and divulging privileged information.
Third, Comey claims that Trump literally ordered his prosecution through various social media posts that were made public by Trump. Therefore, Comey was targeted.
And finally, it has been discovered that newly appointed prosecutor Halligan never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury which is required. She just had the foreperson sign the indictment in a rush to get charges filed before the statute of limitations ran out against Comey.
On this episode of the podcast Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson make the whole concept of vindictive prosecutions understandable.
They delve into what the various federal judges must consider in making their decisions and specifically look in-depth at the allegations of vindictiveness in the Comey case.