Compassionate Release COVID

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you the information you need so you can make smart decisions about your case and your future. If you're searching for answers about compassionate release and COVID, you're probably hoping the pandemic changed something fundamental about how the federal prison system treats sick inmates. It did change things - for about two years. Then the system found new reasons to say no. Here's the uncomfortable truth nobody advertises: before the First Step Act passed in 2018, only 24 federal inmates per year received compassionate release. Not 24 percent. Twenty-four people total, out of more than 180,000 federal prisoners. The Bureau of Prisons denied 94% of all requests internally, and the ones they denied never even reached a judge. The DOJ's own Inspector General found "terminally ill inmates dying before their requests were decided." That's not a broken system - that's a system working exactly as designed. COVID exposed this cruelty on a massive scale. Suddenly thousands of inmates had legitimate, documented risk factors. Filings increased by 10,000%. Courts that had rubber-stamped denials for decades started granting releases. For a brief window, "extraordinary and compelling" actually meant something. Then the vaccines arrived, the emergency faded from headlines, and courts found their old habits again.

24 People Per Year: What "Compassionate" Actualy Meant

Heres the history most compassionate release articles skip over. Before December 2018, only the Bureau of Prisons Director could file a motion asking a court to reduce someones sentence for compassionate reasons. Not the inmate. Not there lawyer. Only BOP. Think about that structure for a second. The agency running the prison had to ask the court to let someone leave the prison. Every release was an admission that BOP couldnt adequatly care for that inmate. Every release created paperwork, liability questions, and the implication that maybe the sentence was to long in the first place. BOP had every incentive to deny and no incentive to approve. So they denied. From 2013 to 2017, only about 6% of compassionate release requests were approved by BOP and forwarded to courts. The other 94% died in administrative purgatory. Inmates filed requests, waited months for responses, got denied, appealed internally, waited more months, got denied again, and eventualy died - still waiting. The DOJ Inspector Generals report documented this in brutal detail. Terminaly ill inmates. Dying. Before there requests were decided. Not becuase courts rejected them. Becuase BOP never bothered to forward them. Thats what "compassionate release" meant before COVID. It was a legal fiction. A pressure valve that was never actualy opened.

The 30-Day Bypass Congress Had to Create

The First Step Act changed something important. Starting in late 2018, inmates could file there own compassionate release motions directly with the court - but only after one of two conditions. Either they had to fully exhaust BOPs administrative process, or they had to wait 30 days from when they submitted a request to the warden. OK so why did Congress include that 30-day bypass? Becuase they knew BOP would never actualy process requests in good faith. The exhaustion requirement was a nod to administrative procedure. The 30-day bypass was Congress admiting that BOP couldnt be trusted. Thirty days is still to long for some dying inmates. But its infinitly better then the old system, where BOP could sit on requests indefinately. Now at least theres a clock. File your request to the warden on Day 1, and on Day 31 you can go directly to the judge - weather BOP responded or not. Heres the kicker though. That 30-day period still kills people. An inmate diagnosed with terminal cancer in week one might be dead by week five. The bypass helped, but it didnt fix the fundamental problem: the system is structured around administrative conveniece, not medical urgency. Spodek Law Group has seen clients file there warden requests and start the 30-day clock, only to deterioate so rapidly that by the time they could file in court, they were to sick to meaningfuly participate in there own case. The system dosent account for the fact that dying dosent follow bureacratic timelines.

84% Denial: The Math That Governs Your Motion

Lets talk about current numbers. According to U.S. Sentencing Commission data, approximately 16% of compassionate release motions are granted. That means 84% are denied. Five out of every six people who file - after meeting the exhaustion requirement, after gathering medical records, after writing there motion - get told no. Those arnt great odds. But there worse then they look, becuase the 16% includes all the cases with the strongest facts. Terminal cancer with weeks to live. Conditions so severe that even government prosecutors dont object. If your case is anywhere near the margins, your actual odds are lower then 16%. Heres were it gets frustraiting. Courts cite "public safety concerns" in 39.8% of denials. Nearly 40% of the time, the reason your dying in prison instead of with your family is that a judge decided you might be dangerous - even if your 70 years old, wheelchair-bound, and convicted of a non-violent offense. Think about the absurdity. Your asking to be released becuase your to sick to survive prison. The court agrees your sick. But they deny you becuase your also aparently to dangerous to release. Those two things dont fit together, but they dont have to. The court has discretion, and discretion means they can say no for almost any reason. Todd Spodek has watched this play out in cases that make no logical sense. An elderly inmate with stage four cancer. A defendant who served 90% of there sentence. A person whose "violent" offense was a bar fight thirty years ago. Denied for public safety. The label follows you forever.

Why Your Circuit Matters More Then Your Cancer

Heres a hidden connection that changes everything about compassionate release strategy. Your outcome depends more on which federal circuit your case is in then on how sick you actualy are. The Second Circuit - covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont - grants compassionate release at roughly 48% rates in some studies. The Eleventh Circuit - covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama - is far more restrictive. Same statute. Same legal standard. Dramaticly different outcomes. Why would this happen? Becuase "extraordinary and compelling" is not defined precisly in the statute. Courts have discretion to interpret it. Some circuits read it broadly, alowing judges to consider the totality of circumstances, stack multiple factors together, and find that the combination rises to extraordinary even if no single factor would. Other circuits read it narrowly, demanding a terminal diagnosis or something equivelent. This creates a geographic lottery. If you were sentanced in the Southern District of New York, your motion goes to judges in a relatively permissive circuit. If you were sentanced in the Northern District of Florida, your motion goes to judges who've made there careers denying these requests. Same cancer. Same prognosis. Different ZIP code. Different outcome. And you cant change your circuit. Your case stays were it was filed. If you lost the geographic lottery at sentancing, your stuck with it at compassionate release.

COVID Changed Everything (Then Changed Back)

COVID-19 should have been the ulitmate "extraordinary and compelling" circumstance. A novel virus. Spreading rapidly through prisons. Inmates dying. Medical staff overwhelmed. No vaccines. No treatment. Just fear and body counts. In early 2020, courts responded. Compassionate release grants spiked. Judges who had never granted a single motion started granting them. COVID was cited in over 70% of compassionate release motions filed in fiscal year 2020. For a brief window, the system actualy worked the way it was suposed to. Then the vaccines arrived. And everything shifted. Heres the irony. Courts told inmates to get vaccinated. Inmates got vaccinated. Then courts said vaccination eliminated the risk, so COVID was no longer extraordinary. The inmates who followed advice were punished for following advice. By 2024, COVID grounds are routinly rejected. Courts say the pandemic is "no longer extraordinary" becuase society has adapted. Never mind that prison conditions havnt improved. Never mind that new variants keep emerging. Never mind that inmates with comorbidities still face elevated risk. The legal window closed. Think about the timeline. File in March 2020, when courts were scared, and you might get released. File in March 2024, with identical facts, and you get denied. The disease didnt change. The courts willingness changed. Spodek Law Group watched this shift happen in real time. Clients who filed early got out. Clients who waited - sometimes becuase they were to sick to file, sometimes becuase they didnt know they could - got denied on grounds that would have won a year earlier. Timing became more important then medical reality.

What "Extraordinary and Compelling" Actualy Means

The statute - 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) - says courts can reduce sentences when "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant it. Great. What does that mean? The Sentencing Commission provides policy statements listing categories: terminal illness, serious physical or medical condition, serious functional impairment, death or incapacitation of the caregiver for your minor children, and a catch-all for "other reasons" that are similarly extraordinary. But heres the uncomfortable truth. Those categories are guidelines, not guarentees. Courts have discretion to find something extraordinary or not. And that discretion means your terminal cancer might be extraordinary in one courtroom and ordianry in another. Some courts require that your condition be one BOP cannot adequatly treat. Others look at weather you pose a danger to the community. Others balance the seriousness of your offense against the severity of your condition. Theres no formula. Theres no threshold. Theres just a judge making a judgement call. Todd Spodek tells clients the same thing over and over: you cannot predict how a judge will rule on "extraordinary and compelling." You can document everything. You can present the most sympathetic facts imaginable. And the judge can still say its not enough - becuase the standard is inherently subjective. What was extraordinary in 2020 is ordianry in 2024. The words didnt change. The interpretation did.

The BOP Healthcare Paradox

Heres a system revelation that should make you angry. The Bureau of Prisons is responsable for your medical care while your incarcerated. If BOP fails to provide adequet care - if your condition worsens becuase of there neglect - that creates the very medical grounds you'll cite in your compassionate release motion. But guess who evaluates weather your condition is serious enough? BOP. The agency that failed you is the first gatekeeper deciding weather you qualify for release based on that failure. They have every incentive to minimize the severity of your condition, becuase admiting its serious is admiting they caused it or failed to treat it. Inmates develop conditions in prison that they didnt have when they arrived. Chronic illnesses go untreated. Early-stage cancers become late-stage cancers becuase of delayed diagnoses. Mental health conditions deteriorate without adequet intervention. And then when inmates file for compassionate release, BOP argues there condition "isnt that serious" or "is being adequatly managed." This isnt speculation. Its documented. The DOJ Inspector General has repeatedly criticised BOP medical care. Courts have found BOP in contempt for failing to provide constituionally required treatment. Yet BOP remains the first decision-maker on compassionate release requests. The First Step Acts 30-day bypass helps, but it dosent eliminate the paradox. Your still filing a motion arguing your to sick to survive prison, while the agency that made you sick argues your fine.

Public Safety: The Objection That Blocks Everything

Free Consultation

Need Help With Your Case?

Our experienced attorneys are standing by to help. Get a free, confidential case evaluation.

• ✓ 100% Confidential
• ✓ Response Within 1 Hour
• ✓ No Obligation Consultation

Or call us directly: (888) 291-1365

Get Your Free Consultation →

Courts cite "danger to the community" in nearly 40% of compassionate release denials. This is the governments favorite objection, and its almost impossible to overcome. Heres how it works. You file a motion. The government files an opposition. There opposition says something like: "While the defendant has documented medical conditions, releasing him would pose a danger to the community given the serious nature of his offense." The court weighs that argument. And unless your offense was completly non-violent and your rehabilitation is beyond question, the government wins. Think about what this means in practice. Your 65 years old. You have congestive heart failure. You can barely walk. Your offense was a fraud scheme from 2008. The government argues your a danger becuase fraud is a "serious offense." The court agrees. Your denied. It dosent matter that you couldnt physicaly commit fraud from a hospice bed. It dosent matter that your served 80% of your sentence. It dosent matter that your prison disciplanary record is clean. The "danger" finding is about the offense, not about you. Spodek Law Group has seen denials were the only "danger" cited was the origianal offense. No new evidence. No prison misconduct. Just the offense you were already punished for being used to deny you mercy at the end.

The Mistakes That Kill Motions

Heres were compassionate release cases go wrong - and these mistakes are almost always preventable. First mistake: waiting to file the warden request. Some inmates think they need to gather all there medical records first. They spend weeks collecting documentation while the 30-day clock hasnt even started. By the time they finaly file with the warden, theyve lost a month. File the request first. Gather documentation while your waiting. Second mistake: exagerating conditions. Courts see alot of motions. Judges develop a sense for when someone is inflating symptoms or overstating prognosis. If you claim your condition is worse then the medical records show, you lose credibility on everything. The government will point to every discrepency. The judge will wonder what else your exagerating. Be honest about your condition. Honest and sympathetic beats exagerated and suspicious. Third mistake: ignoring the governments likely objections. Before you file, think about what the prosecutor will say. Will they argue your a danger? Address that head-on with evidence of rehabilitation. Will they say BOP can adequatly treat you? Get statements from medical staff about the limitatoins of prison healthcare. Will they point to your disciplanary record? Explain any incidents in context. Anticipate the attack and defuse it in your initial motion. Fourth mistake: filing pro se when you dont have to. Yes, you can file a compassionate release motion without a lawyer. Many inmates do. But the success rates for pro se motions are lower then for represented defendants. If your family can afford counsel, get counsel. If you qualify for a public defender, request one. The legal issues are complex enough that having someone who understands the statute, the case law, and the local judges preferances makes a real difference. Fifth mistake: giving up after the first denial. A denial isnt always the end. Circumstances change. Conditions worsen. New case law develops. Some inmates file second and third motions when there health deteriorates further. Others appeal denials to circuit courts. The process is exhausting and the odds arnt great, but giving up gaurantees the outcome the government wants.

Filing Strategy: When Timing Is Life or Death

If your considering compassionate release, heres what you need to know about timing. File the administrative request to your warden immediatly. Dont wait for more documentation. Dont wait for a diagnosis to worsen. File now. The 30-day clock starts when you submit, not when your ready. While your waiting for the 30 days to pass, gather your medical records. Document everything. Get statements from prison medical staff if posible. Contact family members who can provide letters of support. Line up a release plan showing were you'll live and who'll care for you. On day 31, file in court. Dont wait for BOP to respond. They probly wont, and even if they do, it'll be a denial. Use the bypass. And understand that speed matters more then perfection. A slightly incomplete motion filed quickly is better then a perfect motion filed after you've deteriorated to the point were you cant participate in your case. Heres the cruel math. The average compassionate release motion takes months to resolve. Motions, responses, replies, hearings, decisions. If your prognosis is measured in months, you might not live to see the ruling. Some inmates have died literaly days before courts granted there motions. Thats why you file fast. Thats why you dont wait. Thats why the 30-day exhaustion period - even though Congress ment it to help - can still kill you if your disease moves faster then the legal system. The courts move slowly. The disease dosent. Every week spent waiting is a week you might not have. And nobody else - not BOP, not the government, not even well-meaning judges - will treat your case with the urgency it deserves unless you force them to. Call us at 212-300-5196. Spodek Law Group handles compassionate release cases with the urgency they require - becuase we understand that in this area of law, delay is not just inconveneint. Delay is fatal.