I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I WATCH "LAW AND ORDER" FROM TIME TO TIME. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO A DEBATE, BUT ON THE FACE, IT ALMOST LOOKED AS IF THERE WAS THIS NOTION THAT THERE WAS BAD SPEECH AND GOOD SPEECH. LOOK, I AM SOMEBODY WHO HAS HAD PROTESTERS COME TO MY HOUSE, GET IN MY FACE AND BE VERY NASTY. FOUR TIMES BY LAND, TWO BY SEA. OK WITH THEM DOING AS LONG AS THEY STAY OFF MY LAWN, IN THE LAST CASE THEY DID NOT. IT ALMOST SEEMED AS IF THE PROTESTERS WHO DID NOT LIKE ME NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY THAN THE PROTESTERS THAT MAYBE I WOULD ALLOWED TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT BUT I WILL MAKE SURE I GET MY FACTS RIGHT BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON IN THE SECOND ROUND. I WANT TO GO TO SENTENCING. I'M NOT GOING TO COVER ANY OF THE GROUND THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO SOME OF IT, NOT NECESSARILY ALL OF IT BECAUSE I THINK THE DETAILS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE POSSESSION OF. I'M SURE WE ARE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT A PATTERN. I WAS REALLY IMPACTED BY YOUR DESCRIPTION OF FAMILY DINNERS AND YOUR UNCLES COMING IN IN UNIFORMS AND PUTTING THEIR GUN S UP ON THE COVERED AND HAVING A SENSE OF PRIDE THAT YOU HAVE FAMILY THAT SERVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CASES -- I'M VERY FOCUSED ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BACKING THE BLUE. I THINK THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT -- I TALKED WITH A LOT OF THEM. THEIR MORALE IS LOW. THEY FEEL LIKE DEFUND THE POLICE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER EFFORTS ARE ALREADY MAKING A VERY DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS JOB MORE DIFFICULT, MORE DANGEROUS. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CASES WHERE YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED LOWER SENTENCES THAT EVEN THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAVE. I'M SURE, IF I WERE YOU AND OBSERVING YOU YESTERDAY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY POINT TO SOME MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTORS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE AS A BASIS FOR DOING THAT. I THINK IN ONE CASE, THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED A 30 MONTH SENTENCE. THE DEFENSE RECOMMENDED 21 MONTHS AND YOU GAVE THEM 18 MONTHS. THIS WAS THE THIRD CONVICTION FOR ASSAULTING AN OFFICER. THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS A LOWER SENTENCE. THERE WERE OFFICER ASSAULTS AND IT JUST SEEMED LIKE IT WENT LOWER. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THOSE BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE FACTORS THAT YOU WOULD POINT TO THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE DECISION. I HAVE GOT A QUESTION -- THAT IS AT AN ATOMIC LEVEL. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF A CASE, LOOKING AT THE DEFENDANT. AS YOU DESCRIBED IN SOME OF THE OTHER CASES, YOU MADE A JUDGMENT YOU THOUGHT WAS FAIR AND INBOUND WITH YOUR PEER GROUP. BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COVID PANDEMIC, I BELIEVE YOU MADE A STATEMENT AND I WILL GIVE YOU TIME TO PROVIDE CONTEXT, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I AM ONLY GOING TO READ THE MOST STRIKING. YOU SAID THE OBVIOUS INCREASED RISK OF HARM THAT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC POSES TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN DETAINED IN THE DISTRICTS CONGRESSIONAL FACILITIES REASONABLY SUGGESTS THAT EACH AND EVERY -- AND I THINK THAT MEANS EVERYONE -- EVERY DEFENDANT WHO IS CURRENTLY IN THE D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CUSTODY AND WHO THUS CANNOT TAKE INDEPENDENT MEASURES TO CONTROL THEIR OWN HYGIENE AND DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM OTHERS SHOULD BE RELEASED. I CHECKED IN APRIL OF 2020. I THINK THAT IS WHEN YOU MADE THE STATEMENT, THAT THERE WERE 12 OR 1600, I WILL SAY 1200 PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. DO I READ THAT STATEMENT TO SAY THAT YOU FELT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIME THEY SHOULD ALL BE RELEASED? BECAUSE THAT IS NOT LOOKING AT THEIR DIRIGIBLE CASES. JUDGE JACKSON: NO, YOU DON'T READ IT CORRECTLY. IT WAS NOT A STATEMENT. IT WAS A LINE IN AN OPINION. THE BEGINNING OF THEIR COVID 19 PANDEMIC WAS OBVIOUSLY HORRIBLE AND DIFFICULT TIME FOR ALL OF US. WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE BEGINNING AND THE PRISONS, WHICH WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT AS JUDGES, WE WERE INVOLVED IN -- ...