United States v. Kupa
976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 2013 WL 5550419 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prosecutorial power to file a prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, which drastically enhances mandatory minimum sentences, is systematically abused to coerce guilty pleas and punish defendants who exercise their constitutional right to a trial.
Facts:
- Lulzim Kupa was born in Staten Island to parents who were recent immigrants from Albania.
- In 1999 and again in 2007, Kupa was convicted of conspiring to distribute marijuana.
- After being released from prison in 2010 following his second conviction, Kupa engaged in drug trafficking again.
- The new offense involved trafficking more than five kilograms of cocaine.
- Kupa had several co-defendants, including his brother, who were also involved in the cocaine trafficking conspiracy.
Procedural Posture:
- Lulzim Kupa was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with a drug trafficking offense carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life.
- On March 5, 2013, the government offered Kupa a plea agreement for a sentence within the range of 110-137 months.
- Kupa did not accept the agreement by the government's deadline.
- On March 15, 2013, the government filed a prior felony information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, citing Kupa's two prior felony drug convictions, which increased the mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction at trial to life in prison.
- The government made subsequent plea offers, each conditioning the withdrawal of the § 851 information on Kupa's guilty plea, but with progressively higher recommended sentences.
- On April 10, 2013, faced with a mandatory life sentence if convicted at trial, Kupa entered a plea of guilty.
- The District Court accepted Kupa's guilty plea and proceeded to sentencing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the government's practice of using or threatening to use prior felony informations under 21 U.S.C. § 851 as leverage to secure guilty pleas and punish defendants who proceed to trial an abuse of prosecutorial discretion that produces unjust sentences and undermines the constitutional right to a trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Gleeson, J.
Yes. The government's practice of using prior felony informations under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to secure guilty pleas is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion that coerces defendants, produces excessively severe sentences, and undermines the right to a trial. The original intent of § 851, enacted at the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request in 1970, was to give prosecutors discretion to selectively apply harsh recidivist enhancements only to hardened, professional traffickers, replacing a system of automatic application. However, subsequent DOJ policies, particularly the directive to charge the 'most serious, readily provable offense,' effectively made the filing of § 851 informations automatic, not based on culpability, but on whether a defendant refuses to plead guilty. The case of Lulzim Kupa exemplifies this abuse: the government offered a plea for a sentence of approximately eight years, but when he hesitated, it filed a § 851 information exposing him to mandatory life, thereby coercing his guilty plea. This practice creates an overwhelming 'trial penalty,' making the risk of exercising one's Sixth Amendment right to trial so catastrophic that it has contributed to the 'disappearance of trials' in the federal system. While the Supreme Court's decision in Bordenkircher v. Hayes may deem this practice constitutionally permissible, that does not make it a sound, fair, or just policy.
Analysis:
This opinion serves as a powerful judicial critique of a widespread prosecutorial practice, highlighting the immense and largely unchecked power prosecutors wield in a federal sentencing system dominated by mandatory minimums. By detailing how prosecutorial charging decisions under § 851 effectively determine sentences rather than judicial discretion, Judge Gleeson's reasoning brings attention to the systemic pressures that have led to the decline of the jury trial. The statement advocates for significant DOJ policy reform to prohibit the use of § 851 enhancements as plea-bargaining leverage and to establish stricter criteria for their application, aligning with the original legislative intent. This opinion contributes to the national debate on sentencing reform and prosecutorial power, potentially influencing future legislative action or executive branch policy changes.
