Federal District Court Grants Downward Variance for Defendant With Adverse Childhood Experiences
Recent Cases in Law and Neuroscience, Curated by the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior and the Shen Neurolaw Lab with support from the Dana Foundation
On December 11, 2020, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted a downward variance for Jeffrey Scott Carter, citing Carter’s childhood trauma and stating that “getting Carter into treatment as soon as possible was the best way to protect the public; his criminality will end only when his substance-use disorders and underlying trauma are addressed.”
Carter pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, Carter claimed that he had the gun to sell for drugs, as he struggles with substance use, and did not intend to use it. He filed a motion for a variance.
The court granted a downward variance of one and a half years, resulting in a sentence of 33 months in prison, and “three years of supervised release that is expected to include substantial mental-health and substance-abuse treatment.”
The court explained its decision, stating that Carter’s childhood trauma affected his culpability: “[T]he neurological effects of the trauma he experienced while his brain was still developing likely impacted his capacities to reflect on the consequences of his conduct and to adjust his behavior accordingly, in much the same way that addiction impacts the ability of addicted individuals to avoid illicit substances.”
Carter grew up around “extremely violent” men, including his father, who beat Carter and his family “almost daily.” Dr. Adriana Flores, a psychologist, opined at trial that “she had never encountered a family as violent as Carter’s in 20 years of conducting psychological evaluations.”
At trial, Dr. Flores explained that Carter’s early life led to “a large number” of adverse childhood experiences, which “have neurological effects on children that bear life-long consequences.”
The court stated that “the connection between Carter’s trauma and his criminal conduct is not ephemeral or theoretical. His trauma affects his brain in concrete ways that have made it difficult for him at every turn to avoid falling into addiction and a life of property crimes to support his drug use.” The court found that “failing to consider whether Carter’s trauma contributed to his conduct would turn a blind eye to the well-documented consequences of adverse childhood experiences and would risk punishing Carter for a mental-health condition.”
Because Carter’s conduct was nonviolent and the court believed treatment the best course of action to deter future criminal conduct, it granted Carter’s downward variance.
Key Words: Alabama, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), trauma, substance use, downward variance
Citation: United States v. Carter, 2020 WL 7312182
This post is the 57th post as part of an ongoing Center for Law, Brain & Behavior (CLBB) series tracking the latest developments in law and neuroscience cases. To see previous posts about recent cases, see the full case archive on the CLBB website. To see updates on legal scholarship, see the Neurolaw News, hosted by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. This project is made possible through support of the Dana Foundation.
