MITIGATION Services
Full-Spectrum Mitigation Packages
For capital and serious felony cases requiring comprehensive life-history documentation
Designed for death penalty cases, mitigation work is expanding to cover life-without-parole, high-stakes sentencing, and serious felony cases where complete mitigation development is essential for the case theory and resolution.
Product:
- Biographical timeline spanning conception through current incarceration
- Critical witness identification, location, and interviews
- Identification, location, collection and organization of medical, education, and social service records
- Draft mitigation report suitable for presentation at sentencing hearings or plea negotiations
- Ongoing consultation with defense counsel throughout discovery and plea phases
Mitigation work is ideal for nearly all criminal cases, from capital crimes to misdemeanors.
The timeline for a full-spectrum mitigation package is strongly dependent on the individual case and client.
Focused Mitigation Assessment (Limited Package)
For non-capital cases requiring mitigation development
Mitigation is not off the table when your case has budgetary limits. Court appointments nearly always limit the amount of work hours for a mitigation or fact investigation. Mitigation themes can still be uncovered and built up to impact the resolution of a criminal matter.
For a focused mitigation assessment effort in your case, you can expect:
- Targeted interview of select key collateral sources
- Review of medical and/or mental health records and academic records (if applicable)
- Identification or core mitigating themes
- Concise written reports of findings
A focused mitigation assessment is ideal for state-level felony cases, juvenile matters, and habitual offender sentencing hearings.
The timeline for a focused assessment is significantly less than full-spectrum mitigation packages.
See examples on how mitigation packages in felony cases
have succeeded for some of my clients HERE
Common Mitigating Factors Used in Sentencing
Minor role. The defendant played a relatively minor role in the crime. For example, suppose Joe received $20 for knowingly driving a codefendant to a location where the latter made a drug deal. At sentencing for his conviction for transporting methamphetamine, Joe has a good argument that his small role in the criminal activity is a mitigating circumstance.
Victim culpability. The victim willingly participated in the crime or initiated the events leading to it. If Joe started a fight by attacking George and George responded with more force than was necessary to defend himself, this factor would come into play at Walt’s assault-and-battery sentencing.
Unusual circumstance. The defendant committed the crime because of temporary emotional difficulty or significant provocation. This circumstance applies when a defendant acts out while under extreme stress. For example, suppose that Joe, in anguish over the recent death of his girlfriend, stole some beer from a liquor store so he could get drunk.
No harm. The defendant didn’t hurt anyone and committed the crime in a manner unlikely to cause harm. The no-harm circumstance would be relevant if Hank carjacked a driver by sternly ordering her out of her car, but carefully and gently helped her out of it.
Lack of record. The defendant doesn’t have a criminal record or only has a relatively minor record.
Relative necessity. The defendant acted out of a desire to provide life necessities. This circumstance would be relevant for someone who stole a rotisserie chicken from the grocery store so that he could feed his starving family.
Remorse. The defendant accepted responsibility and showed remorse. A defendant who confesses upon arrest and is contrite in court has this factor in his favor.
Difficult personal history. The defendant’s unique upbringing or family circumstances led to her criminal conduct. For example, a lawyer might try to persuade a sentencing judge that the client’s violent acts are attributable to abuse she suffered as a child.
Addiction. Drug or alcohol addiction contributed to—but wasn’t just an incentive or excuse to commit—the crime. Addiction would be a mitigating factor for a theft conviction if the defendant had showed a concerted effort at rehabilitation, but relapsed into drug use and stole some copper wire while high.