493 F.Supp.3d 231
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Fisher was convicted in 1984 for leading a large narcotics enterprise (the “Council”) and received life imprisonment on a continuing criminal enterprise count; he has served 38 years.
- He moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing age (73), chronic health conditions, and heightened COVID-19 risk, plus extensive post‑conviction rehabilitation (GED, BA, MA, PhD, tutoring/mentoring).
- The Government opposed, arguing Fisher failed to show "extraordinary and compelling reasons" and emphasizing the violent nature of the underlying offenses.
- The court found the administrative exhaustion requirement satisfied and that, viewed together, Fisher’s age, medical conditions, COVID‑19 risk, and sustained rehabilitation constituted "extraordinary and compelling reasons."
- In weighing § 3553(a) factors, the court acknowledged serious allegations of violence but noted: no special verdicts on murders, an acquittal on the witness‑murder count, long post‑conviction rehabilitation, advanced age, and low recidivism risk.
- The court granted compassionate release: sentence reduced to time served, 15 years supervised release with mental‑health and medical conditions, and a 14‑day quarantine/medical clearance before release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Warden request made July 10, 2020; 30 days lapsed | Opposed exhaustion not raised | Exhaustion met; motion considered |
| Whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" exist | Age, combined health issues, COVID‑19 risk + extensive rehabilitation justify release | Must meet strict U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 categories; Fisher doesn’t qualify | Court applied Brooker rationale: combined medical risk + rehabilitation are extraordinary and compelling; granted relief |
| Weight of offense conduct (violent allegations) in §3553(a) | Acknowledges seriousness but stresses lack of jury findings on murders and post‑sentence transformation | Emphasizes murder allegations, juror bribery allegations, gravity of crimes to deny release | Nature of offense weighs somewhat against release but is not dispositive given record gaps and other factors |
| Public safety/need for deterrence under §3553(a) | Advanced age, long incarceration, clean disciplinary record, and rehabilitation make recidivism unlikely | Release would undermine sentence goals and public safety | Court found low danger to public; this factor favors release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985) (describing the Council and related convictions)
- United States v. Hayden, 814 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1987) (review of prior trial proceedings and testimonial issues)
- United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979) (background on Council leadership and convictions)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (affected sentencing/conviction analysis prior to vacatur of lesser included count)
- Fisher v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (post‑conviction litigation relevant to Fisher’s convictions)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post‑sentencing rehabilitation is relevant to sentencing factors)
- United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (district court consideration of compassionate release and scope of courts’ discretion)