Acceptance of Responsibility at Sentencing

Acceptance of responsibility is a concept in that appears in many federal criminal cases. It refers to the idea that a defendant acknowledges their culpability for the offense they are charged with. This is not just admitting guilt, but also demonstrating remorse and a willingness to cooperate with authorities. The defendant must genuinely take responsibility for their actions and the consequences that result from them. Acceptance of responsibility can play a significant role in determining a defendant’s sentence, as well as a defendant’s overall standing in the eyes of the court.

One way in which acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated is through the defendant’s guilty plea. When a defendant pleads guilty, they are admitting to the charges against them and accept the consequences that come with those charges. This can be seen as a sign of acceptance of responsibility, as the defendant is acknowledging that they committed the crime and is willing to accept the punishment for it. Aside from pleading guilty early in the legal process, acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated through actions such as cooperating with law enforcement or prosecutors, showing remorse for one’s actions, or taking steps towards rehabilitation and/or restitution.

During federal sentencing, a defendant who has exhibited remorse can be awarded either a two- or three-level decrease in their calculated guideline range based on USSG § 3E1.1 Acceptance of Responsibility. A majority of federal criminal defendants who plead guilty receive this sentencing decrease; but, whether it applies to a case is ultimately within the court’s discretion. Section 3E1.1 is relevant only in the federal system; however, on the state level, the general concept of accepting responsibility is still applicable at sentencing.

Any conduct or statements by the defendant that are viewed as inconsistent with genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility can and will result in the Court ruling that the two- or three-level decrease does not apply at sentencing. Recently, “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 18 months in prison after prosecutors argued that she showed no remorse for her conduct.

In a filing to the Court, the prosecutors highlighted several jail calls where Gutierrez-Reed demonstrated her “complete and total failure to accept responsibility for her actions.” The filing states she complained about how the shooting had negatively affected her life and modeling career while never expressing genuine remorse at any time. In those recorded jail calls, the defendant made several crude comments, including calling the jurors “idiots” and “retards.”

The full filing submitted to the Court highlighting the jail calls is available here. Ultimately, after seeing the defendant’s conversations in jail, the judge agreed that Gutierrez-Reed had not accepted responsibility or exhibited genuine remorse for her conduct. Accordingly, she was sentenced to the maximum punishment per the recommendation of the prosecutors.