An experienced defense attorney will argue both for departures and variances from the recommended sentencing range. The arguments for a variance number as many as an attorney can dream up. A successful argument for a variance will incorporate some aspect of the defendant’s situation not contemplated by the guidelines which warrants a variation from the recommended guideline sentencing range.

United States Federal Code requires the courts to consider the client’s history, personal characteristics, education, training, and need for substance or mental health abuse treatment, among other things. The statute also requires that the court take into consideration the seriousness of the offense, as well as the need to promote deterrence. Variance arguments are commonly based on these and other factors, such as

  • Good works performed by defendant over his lifetime
  • Defendant’s ongoing responsibilities
  • Defendant’s health or age
  • Defendant’s absence of criminal record

In the event of a successful argument for a downward variance, the judge has discretion to fashion an appropriate punishment other than total incarceration. For example, some defendants have successfully applied for placement in a halfway house following a minimal prison sentence. Others have been able to obtain home confinement, or even supervised release.

These prison alternatives should always be explored and argued for leading up to a sentencing hearing upon conviction of antitrust violations. An experienced white collar criminal defense attorney with expertise in the antitrust statutes and sentencing guidelines can often be the difference between going to prison or going home. The professionals at Parkman White, LLP specialize in antitrust law, including relevant sentencing statutes, and offer the best representation to be found. If you have been charged with or convicted of an antitrust violation, call today for a free consultation.