Sentencing Decisions in Three U.S. District Courts: Testing the Assumption of Uniformity in the Federal Sentencing Process

Abstract

Studies of the federal sentencing process typically focus on sentencing decisions at the national level. These studies assume, either explicitly or implicitly, that there is little interdistrict variation in case processing policies and procedures and that findings regarding sentence outcomes at the national level therefore reflect the reality of decisionmaking in each of the U.S. District Courts. This study uses data on offenders sentenced in three U.S. District Courts to test the assumption of national uniformity in the federal sentencing process. The results of the analysis revealed that the odds of incarceration did not vary among the three districts and that sentence length did not vary at all between Nebraska and Minnesota, but varied by eight months between Nebraska and Southern Iowa and between Minnesota and Southern Iowa. There were, on the other hand, significant interdistrict differences in sentence discounts for downward departures and departures for substantial assistance. Further analysis revealed that most of the interjurisdictional differences in prison sentences were generated by cases in which offenders received substantial assistance departures.