In political terms, they are often viewed as liberal grievances, such as the disparity in sentences for crack versus powder cocaine, and life sentences handed out to nonviolent or first-time drug offenders.

But these objections come from federal judges appointed by Republican presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And for that reason, their comments offer guideposts for those searching for practical, bipartisan proposals to change federal sentencing laws, according to Roger Williams University law Prof. David M. Zlotnick.

After 4½ years of work, Zlotnick has compiled 40 case studies in which federal judges appointed by GOP presidents complained that sentences required by law were excessive, and he has placed his research on a Web site so it can be used in the upcoming debate in Congress over proposed changes in crack cocaine penalties.

“By showing that Republican appointees share many of the same concerns as academics and criminal defense attorneys, I hope to explode the myth of the liberal federal judiciary and pave the way for meaningful and bipartisan sentencing reform,” Zlotnick wrote.

Zlotnick is just the latest Rhode Islander to join a growing national discussion of the crack/powder disparity. U.S. District Judge William E. Smith wrote a 71-page memo in sentencing a Pawtucket man in 2005, saying he would not “blindly apply” federal sentencing guidelines that treat 500 grams of powder cocaine as the equivalent of 5 grams of crack. (As a result of that 100-to-1 ratio, selling 5 grams of crack carries a mandatory minimum of five years, while it takes 500 grams of powder to trigger the same minimum sentence.)

Also in 2005, then-Chief U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres called the 100-to-1 ratio “unreasonable” in sentencing two Rhode Island crack offenders, saying the 20-to-1 ratio recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Commission made more sense. Those cases went to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and in a groundbreaking decision last year, the appellate court’s only Rhode Islander, Judge Bruce M. Selya, wrote a decision saying Torres erred by using the 20-to-1 ratio and Congress was the proper place to address the crack/powder disparity.

Smith was appointed by President George W. Bush, and Torres and Selya were appointed by Rea- gan, but no Rhode Island judges are included in Zlotnick’s research.

Zlotnick, a Providence resident and Harvard Law School graduate, worked as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., before becoming litigation director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. An Open Society Institute grant financed his research on federal sentencing.

In an upcoming Colorado Law Review article, Zlotnick says federal sentencing policy has been “in a state of suspended animation” since 2005, when, in United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court said federal sentencing guidelines, which apply to all crimes, are no longer mandatory. After that landmark ruling, conservatives in Congress and the Justice Department tried to come up with a “Booker fix” to reverse the decision. But even with their newfound freedom, judges did not vary from the guidelines as much as feared, Zlotnick said, and conservative legislators lost momentum when Democrats took control of Congress last year.

Now, Zlotnick said, “sentencing reformers” are hopeful of doing something about “the worst inequities” in federal sentencing, such as the crack/powder disparity.

But, he wrote, “Their optimism may be misplaced. Modern sentencing policy has seemingly defied the law of gravity. With few exceptions, penalties that go up seem to stay up because politicians of both parties fear being labeled soft on crime. Therefore, this article urges sentencing advocates to look to an unlikely source for realistic goals and ideological support — the experiences of Republican judicial appointees during the mandatory guidelines era.”

Zlotnick noted that critics, including federal judges, have decried the disparity in crack penalties and the disproportionate impact it has on black offenders.

And his article cites the case of William E. Gaines, a black man who was sentenced to 24 years and 4 months in prison on charges of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack. “Even according to the government’s version of the offense, (Gaines) was not a central figure in the Oklahoma City cocaine ring that resulted in a 29-count indictment against 12 individuals in 1994,” the article says. “He was sentenced to 292 months despite being a first offender, in part, because the conspiracy was alleged to have trafficked approximately 10.6 kilograms of crack.”

When she sentenced Gaines, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron — a Western District of Oklahoma judge appointed by former President George H.W. Bush in 1991 — said, “There are times when the guidelines do not result in fairness or equity. It is of concern to me any time someone with no criminal history can face exposure as high as Mr. Gaines does based on a first conviction. But in any event, the guidelines are the law and they have been found to be constitutional and the way to change them is through the political process.”

Zlotnick said Gaines’ sentence seems even more unfair given that a drug wholesaler, who cooperated and testified against Gaines and others, ended up going to prison for just 72 months.

“While many judges and commentators have focused on the racial impact of crack sentences, Republican appointees seem to be mostly concerned with proportionality,” Zlotnick wrote. “Particularly for small-time figures like (Gaines), meting out crack sentences that far exceeded the penalties imposed for armed robbers, rapists and even some murderers troubled these judges. This is particularly true for first-time offenders and lower-level retail dealers.”

Congress wanted mandatory minimums to apply to drug kingpins and importers. But, Zlotnick said, “It is well understood that cocaine is imported into the United States as powder and is only converted to crack at the end of the retail chain. Thus, the real kingpins and importers are subjected to much less severe penalties than the largely poor minorities and addicts who deal in small quantities of crack. For the judges who have to impose these penalties, they found something perverse about punishing the smallest fish in the distribution chain the most severely.”

Zlotnick said he was surprised to find that some judges were troubled by sentences imposed on more serious offenders, who received virtual life sentences for nonviolent or first-time offenses.

The article cites the case of Robert J. Riley, a Grateful Dead fan known as “Mushroom Bob” who followed the band while selling LSD and other drugs to fellow “Deadheads.” Before his federal case, Riley had pleaded guilty to four charges involving small amounts of marijuana, hashish and amphetamines. So when convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than 10 grams of LSD, he received a mandatory life sentence without parole because he had three prior drug felony convictions.

At the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ronald E. Longstaff — a Southern District of Iowa judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 — said, “The mandatory life sentence as applied to you is not just, it’s an unfair sentence, and I find it very distasteful to have to impose it.” In an interview with Zlotnick, Longstaff said he believed a 10- to 12-year sentence would have been sufficient for Riley.

Zlotnick’s article says Republican appointees were also concerned with the “stacking” of mandatory minimum sentences for using or carrying a firearm during a drug or violent offense. Federal law mandates a 5-year sentence for the first such offense and an additional 25 years for any subsequent offense.

The problem, Zlotnick said, is defendants don’t have to be convicted, or even charged, with the first offense when the second offense occurs. So undercover officers can make a series of small drug purchases from a dealer, and if the dealer has a gun each time, prosecutors can charge the dealer with multiple counts of carrying a firearm in a drug transaction. As a result, Zlotnick said, “Small-time, two-bit drug dealers who had guns are getting the kind of severe sentences the public thinks are going to kingpins and violent criminals, and prosecutors have complete control.”

The article cites the case of Michael Prikakis, who made three powder cocaine sales to undercover officers. Under sentencing guidelines, he faced 15 to 21 months in prison based on the amount of cocaine. But undercover agents said he had a pistol with him during each sale, so he was charged with three counts of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. At the time, that triggered a 5-year sentence for the first offense and consecutive 20-year sentences for each subsequent charge — for a total minimum sentence of 45 years.

U.S. District Judge Clyde Roger Vinson, a Northern District of Florida judge appointed by Reagan in 1983, said the case was “the most absurd situation I’ve ever seen, and to me it constitutes an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.” He sentenced Prikakis, saying, “It’s sickening for me to have to do this.”

Zlotnick said any proposed changes in federal sentencing law are likely to fail if advocates simply argue that sentences are too severe and judges need more discretion, because they’ll be “branded soft-on-crime and as advocating for a power-hungry judiciary.” Instead, he urged advocates to adopt the language these judges use when talking about how to keep the public safe.

“We have to look at it as our enlightened self-interest,” Zlotnick said in an interview. “We need to convince drug-and-gun defendants not to do it anymore, and we need to keep them away from us until they’re convinced. But don’t deprive them of so much of their adulthood that they can’t be productive when they get out.”

The case studies are available at http://faculty.rwu.edu/dzlotnick/federalsentencingstudy.html.

efitzpat@projo.com