npr--2020-12-09--48 AGs, FTC Sue Facebook, Alleging Illegal Power Grabs To 'Neutralize' Rivals

The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from more than 40 states filed much-anticipated lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday , accusing the social media giant of gobbling up competitive threats in a way that has entrenched its popular apps so deeply into the lives of billions of people that rivals can no longer put up a fight .
`` For nearly a decade , Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition , all at the expense of everyday users , '' said New York Attorney General Letitia James , who led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are taking action to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook 's illegal behavior . ''
The suits are the latest salvo against Big Tech and come less than two months after the U.S. Justice Department and 11 states sued Google , alleging the company violated competition law .
Together , the efforts to rein in the power of the tech giants marks a new era for U.S. regulators , who for decades allowed the technology sector to grow rapidly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lawsuits take particular aim at Facebook 's blockbuster acquisitions of photo-sharing app Instagram , for $ 1 billion in 2012 , and messaging app WhatsApp , for $ 19 billion in 2014 .
Thanks in large part to the growth of the two hugely popular properties , more than 2.5 billion people use one of Facebook 's apps every day .
The attorneys general allege that the deals for Instagram and WhatsApp broke competition law .
Prosecutors are asking a federal court to intervene by possibly forcing a sale or spinoff of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are asking the court to immediately prevent Facebook from making any acquisitions worth more than $ 10 million while the case proceeds .
In its separate suit , the FTC is also pushing to have Facebook unwind its purchases of and Instagram and WhatsApp .
`` Today 's enforcement action aims to restore competition to this important industry and provide a foundation for future competitors to grow and innovate without the threat of being crushed by Facebook , '' said Ian Conner , director of the FTC 's competition bureau .
Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other apps viewed as potential competitors from critical access to its data and systems .
`` In an effort to maintain its market dominance in social networking , Facebook has employed a buy-or-bury strategy to impede competing services , '' James said .
`` They also sent a clear message to the industry : Do n't step on Facebook 's turf .
Or as one industry executive put it , 'You will face the wrath of Mark , ' `` she said , referring to CEO Mark Zuckerberg .
Facebook 's general counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges as `` revisionist history . ''
In a statement , she said the company 's takeover of Instagram and WhatsApp had already been approved by federal regulators at the time of the acquisitions .
`` Now , many years later , with seemingly no regard for settled law or the consequences to innovation and investment , the agency is saying it got it wrong and wants a do-over , '' she said .
Facebook said it faces plenty of competition from other social media companies , including messaging platform Snapchat and short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the regulatory spotlight after years of a laissez-faire approach The 48 attorneys general , including the District of Columbia and Guam , involved in the lawsuit and federal investigators have been conducting probes into Facebook for more than a year .
Attorneys general from Alabama , Georgia , South Carolina and South Dakota did not join the states ' suit , which legal experts say could turn into a landmark case against one of the most powerful companies in the world .
After years of taking a laissez-faire approach to regulating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides of the aisle have grown increasingly concerned about the influence that the biggest tech companies wield over how people live , work , shop and receive information about the most vital topics of the day , such as presidential elections and the coronavirus pandemic .
Sally Hubbard , a former antitrust lawyer in New York 's Office of the Attorney General and author of the new book Monopolies Suck , said industry onlookers have long criticized Facebook 's aggressive tactics .
`` Facebook has ensured that any company that is innovating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or acquired — that 's the modus operandi of Facebook , '' Hubbard said .
`` This is a big deal .
I think we 're finally turning the tide and reinvigorating our antitrust laws .
Everybody is going to benefit when we have markets that are competitive and functioning . ''
Facebook is far from the only tech behemoth now under intense government scrutiny .
Others , like Apple and Amazon , are under examination by the Justice Department and the FTC , as part of a wide-ranging review of Big Tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where antitrust enforcers and regulators were saying , 'We need to stay hands off Big Tech , ' and it 's really becoming clear with cases like this that that time is over , '' said Charlotte Slaiman , a former FTC lawyer who now leads competition policy at the Washington-based advocacy group Public Knowledge .
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are circling the companies , too .
In a damning report in October accusing Facebook , Google , Apple and Amazon of abusing their market dominance , House Democrats zeroed in on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages between Zuckerberg and a top deputy in which they discussed `` neutraliz [ ing ] '' a potential competitor as a reason to pursue Instagram .
The report concluded that Facebook 's lack of competition has led to lower quality , harming users ' privacy and fueling the spread of online misinformation .
It cited internal documents showing that Facebook is now more worried about competition among its own products than the threat of rivals .
On Wednesday , House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , said he welcomed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its monopoly , allowing it to engage in other abusive conduct , '' he said in a statement .
`` This should never have happened . ''
Courts could pursue a range of remedies to address claims against Facebook In the most extreme outcome , the lawsuits could result in Facebook being forced to spin off parts of its business or face far-reaching restrictions on how it operates .
But experts say other outcomes remain possible .
Among them , forcing Facebook to allow people to post simultaneously across platforms not owned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing social networks within Facebook and permitting friend lists and other data to be exported to rival platforms .
`` So it 's easier for people to leave Facebook if they 're not happy with how Facebook is running things , '' Slaiman , the former FTC lawyer , said .
This idea , known in tech circles as `` interoperability , '' could help introduce more competition into social media and give people choice that has until now been stifled , state and federal investigators allege .
`` When Facebook does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
It does n't have a competitor that is requiring it to do better .
People do n't have an option , '' said Hubbard , the former New York antitrust enforcer .
Facebook has already faced questions over how it handles user privacy and data .
Last year , the company agreed to pay the FTC $ 5 billion for failing to protect data from being shared with third-party apps .
Experts say from dominating online advertising , which has a cost that can be passed off to consumers , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used to target users with ads or other content , Facebook exerts an unfathomable amount of power that has gone virtually unchecked since the company was founded in a Harvard University dorm room in 2004 .
`` People are used to having been abused by monopoly by having prices jacked up on them .
People understand when their cable bill is high and they only have a choice in one or maybe two providers , '' Hubbard said .
`` People have a harder time understanding how Facebook 's monopoly power makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note : Facebook is among NPR 's financial supporters .

48 AGs, FTC Sue Facebook, Alleging Illegal Power Grabs To 'Neutralize' Rivals
Enlarge this image toggle caption Andrew Harnik/AP Andrew Harnik/AP
Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET
The Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general across the nation filed much-anticipated lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday, accusing the social media giant of gobbling up competitive threats in a way that has entrenched its popular apps so deeply into the lives of billions of people that rivals can no longer put up a fight.
"For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the states' investigation. "Today, we are taking action to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook's illegal behavior."
The suits are the latest salvo against Big Tech and come less than two months after the U.S. Justice Department and 11 states sued Google, alleging the company violated competition law. Together, the efforts to rein in the power of the tech giants mark a new era for U.S. regulators, who for decades allowed the technology sector to grow rapidly with few restraints.
Lawsuits take aim at Facebook's alleged 'buy-or-bury' strategy
Wednesday's lawsuits take particular aim at Facebook's blockbuster acquisitions of photo-sharing app Instagram, for $1 billion in 2012, and messaging app WhatsApp, for $19 billion in 2014. Thanks in large part to the growth of the two hugely popular properties, more than 2.5 billion people use one of Facebook's apps every day.
The attorneys general allege that the deals for Instagram and WhatsApp broke competition law. Prosecutors are asking a federal court to intervene by possibly forcing a sale or spinoff of those apps.
In addition, authorities are asking the court to prevent Facebook from making any acquisitions worth more than $10 million while the case proceeds.
In its separate suit, the FTC is also pushing to have Facebook unwind its purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.
"Today's enforcement action aims to restore competition to this important industry and provide a foundation for future competitors to grow and innovate without the threat of being crushed by Facebook," said Ian Conner, director of the FTC's competition bureau.
Facebook, according to the lawsuits, cut off other apps viewed as potential competitors from critical access to its data and systems.
"In an effort to maintain its market dominance in social networking, Facebook has employed a buy-or-bury strategy to impede competing services," James said. "They also sent a clear message to the industry: Don't step on Facebook's turf. Or as one industry executive put it, 'You will face the wrath of Mark,'" she said, referring to CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Facebook's general counsel, Jennifer Newstead, dismissed the legal challenges as "revisionist history." In a statement, she said the company's takeover of Instagram and WhatsApp had been approved by federal regulators at the time of the acquisitions.
"Now, many years later, with seemingly no regard for settled law or the consequences to innovation and investment, the agency is saying it got it wrong and wants a do-over," she said.
Facebook said it faces plenty of competition from other social media companies, including messaging platform Snapchat and video-sharing app TikTok.
Big Tech is in the regulatory spotlight after years of a laissez-faire approach
The 48 attorneys general — representing 46 states, the District of Columbia and Guam — involved in the lawsuit and federal investigators have been conducting probes into Facebook for more than a year.
Attorneys general from Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and South Dakota did not join the states' suit, which legal experts say could turn into a landmark case against one of the most powerful companies in the world.
After years of taking a laissez-faire approach to the tech giants, regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have grown increasingly concerned about the influence that the biggest tech companies wield over how people live, work, shop and receive information about the most vital topics of the day, such as presidential elections and the coronavirus pandemic.
Sally Hubbard, a former antitrust lawyer in New York's Office of the Attorney General and author of the new book Monopolies Suck, said industry onlookers have long criticized Facebook's aggressive tactics.
"Facebook has ensured that any company that is innovating is just destroyed. Copy, killed or acquired — that's the modus operandi of Facebook," Hubbard said. "This is a big deal. I think we're finally turning the tide and reinvigorating our antitrust laws. Everybody is going to benefit when we have markets that are competitive and functioning."
Facebook and Google are not the only tech behemoths under intense government scrutiny. Others, including Apple and Amazon, are under examination by the Justice Department and the FTC, as part of a wide-ranging review.
"There was a long period where antitrust enforcers and regulators were saying, 'We need to stay hands off Big Tech,' and it's really becoming clear with cases like this that that time is over," said Charlotte Slaiman, a former FTC lawyer who now leads competition policy at the Washington-based advocacy group Public Knowledge.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are circling the companies, too. In a damning report in October accusing Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon of abusing their market dominance, House Democrats zeroed in on Facebook's acquisition strategy. The report quoted messages between Zuckerberg and a top deputy in which they discussed "neutraliz[ing]" a potential competitor as a reason to pursue Instagram.
The report concluded that Facebook's lack of competition has led to lower quality, harming users' privacy and fueling the spread of online misinformation. It cited internal documents showing that Facebook is now more worried about competition among its own products than the threat of rivals.
On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said he welcomed the lawsuits. "Facebook has illegally maintained its monopoly, allowing it to engage in other abusive conduct," he said in a statement. "This should never have happened."
Courts could pursue a range of remedies to address claims against Facebook
In the most extreme outcome, the lawsuits could result in Facebook being forced to spin off parts of its business or face far-reaching restrictions on how it operates.
But experts say other outcomes remain possible. Among them, forcing Facebook to allow people to post simultaneously across platforms not owned by Facebook, letting users view posts from competing social networks within Facebook and permitting friend lists and other data to be exported to rival platforms.
"So it's easier for people to leave Facebook if they're not happy with how Facebook is running things," Slaiman, the former FTC lawyer, said.
This idea, known in tech circles as "interoperability," could help introduce more competition into social media and give people more choices, state and federal investigators say.
"When Facebook doesn't have competition, it can abuse us all. It doesn't have a competitor that is requiring it to do better. People don't have an option," said Hubbard, the former New York antitrust enforcer.
Facebook has already faced questions over how it handles user privacy and data. Last year, the company agreed to pay the FTC $5 billion for failing to protect data from being shared with third-party apps.
Experts say from dominating online advertising, which has a cost that can be passed off to consumers, to harvesting vast amounts of data that can be used to target users with ads or other content, Facebook exerts an unfathomable amount of power that has gone virtually unchecked since the company was founded in a Harvard University dorm room in 2004.
"People are used to having been abused by monopoly by having prices jacked up on them. People understand when their cable bill is high and they only have a choice in one or maybe two providers," Hubbard said. "People have a harder time understanding how Facebook's monopoly power makes their life worse."
Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters.


npr--2020-12-09--Lawyer Combats America's 'Huge Crisis' Of Mass Incarceration

Brittany Barnett works on behalf of people serving harsh sentences as a result of the war on drugs .
Nine of her clients have been granted clemency .
Her new memoir is A Knock at Midnight .
This is FRESH AIR .
I 'm Terry Gross .
Another step in the retreat from the war on drugs was taken Friday when the House of Representatives voted to decriminalize marijuana and expunge federal marijuana convictions dating back to 1971 .
The bill is considered unlikely to pass the Senate .
My guest , Brittany Barnett , is a lawyer who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without parole or other harsh sentences because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs .
Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes on flimsy evidence and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional .
She secured freedom for dozens of men and women who were sentenced to life .
She got involved with this work because her mother , who became addicted to crack , was sent to jail when Barnett was in ninth grade and then later served two years in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her early 20s .
Seven of Brittany Barnett 's clients were granted clemency by President Obama and two by President Trump .
She also founded the programs Buried Alive , which works to free people left in prison under outdated Reagan-era laws , and Girls Embracing Mothers , which brings girls to prison to visit their incarcerated mothers and helps mentor those girls .
Barnett has written a new memoir titled `` A Knock At Midnight . ''
It 's about her work and about her early life growing up in east @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were sent to prison .
Brittany Barnett , welcome to FRESH AIR .
And congratulations on your book .
Your first client was Sharanda Jones .
And you found her when you were a law student .
You were writing a paper and wanted to make your case about people serving these mandatory minimum life sentences .
So you Googled - what did you Google , woman , prison ( laughter ) , life sentence ?
GROSS : And she 's the one who came up .
And she 's one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She 's out .
She 's free .
It was a very , very long process , started when you were a law student .
So explain the charges that she was serving a life sentence for .
BARNETT : Sharanda Jones was set to spend the rest of her natural life in prison for her first ever conviction , felony or otherwise , for federal drug conspiracy .
And Sharanda Jones accepts responsibility .
She participated in a federal drug conspiracy by way of being what you would sort of call a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a handful of occasions for two drug dealers .
And Sharanda Jones , being naive to this massive beast of the criminal legal system that we have , she opted to utilize her constitutional right to go to trial .
And when she did , those two drug suppliers that she was transporting the drugs for testified against her at her trial and received lesser sentences in exchange for their testimony .
Sharanda Jones was accused of transporting powder cocaine .
The co-conspirators who testified against her vouched that it was powder cocaine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharanda Jones knew or should have known that the powder cocaine was going to be rocked up , as they call it , into crack and enhance her sentence under these harsher crack cocaine penalties .
And for people listening who may not understand this 100-1 ratio , it means that , Terry , you could have 500 grams of powder cocaine .
I could have only five grams of crack cocaine .
And you and I would receive the same sentence in prison .
And this harsh 100-1 sentencing disparity came into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
And it created a hugely disproportionate sentencing that led to , even today , over 80 % of the people in federal prison for drug offenses are Black and brown people .
And so this law had this racially biased impact that devastated lives and entire communities .
GROSS : She was told by her lawyer that she had a great case and there was basically no way she was going to jail .
So she was misled about that - not intentionally misled , but still misled .
Had she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think she would have given a lesser sentence , like if she copped a plea ?
BARNETT : I do .
I feel if Sharanda Jones had accepted a plea deal , there 's no way she would have received a life sentence in this case .
Sharanda Jones ' trial lawyer had never tried a federal drug case before .
And what many people do n't understand is just this wide-reaching net of federal drug conspiracy laws .
And these laws simply mean that two or more people come to an agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's case , for example , there was no physical evidence whatsoever that Sharanda Jones was involved in this drug conspiracy .
There was no controlled buys .
There was no surveillance .
There were no large sums of cash , no drugs even found .
But in the federal court system , all you need is the testimony of co-conspirators and you 're held accountable for what we call ghost dope in the federal system .
And that ghost dope is dope that 's never found , you know ?
It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony of co-conspirators .
And that 's the most unfortunate part about the entire process because the more drugs you 're held accountable for , the more excessive your penalty .
GROSS : Sharanda Jones ' mother was in prison , charged with the same conspiracy .
On what grounds ?
Her mother was paraplegic .
BARNETT : It 's mind-blowing .
Her mother was sent to prison for the same charge as Sharanda Jones .
Essentially , I feel her mother was sent to prison because she refused to give up any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharanda Jones ' entire family was swept up in this large drug conspiracy .
And her mother , as you mentioned , was paralyzed from the neck down and was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison .
In fact , 12 of those years she served in the same prison as Sharanda Jones .
GROSS : You managed to get clemency for her from President Obama .
Tell us a little bit about what the clemency process is like .
What do you have to do ?
You , basically , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah .
So clemency , to me , is where justice meets mercy .
And as I was working on Sharanda 's case , I kept trying to find these avenues to get her free and just had to be real with myself , Terry , that there 's absolutely no way I can get Sharanda free through the court .
And that 's when I learned about clemency .
And President Barack Obama was in office at the time .
And the way I approach my clemency cases is to show the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman behind the prisoner number that she had been assigned .
I wanted to show who she was as a person , a truly center of the human element .
And so I prepared a clemency petition for her .
And I applied for clemency for Sharanda Jones in November of 2013 .
In the normal clemency process , you apply with the office of the pardon attorney .
If they recommend a favorable clemency recommendation , it goes to the Department of Justice .
And it goes through several levels of review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or six .
If they recommend a favorable clemency petition , then it goes the White House counsel and ultimately lands on the president 's desk .
GROSS : How do you get the notification that your clemency request has been approved ?
BARNETT : You get notified by a call from an attorney in the Office of the Pardon Attorney 's office .
GROSS : And what was it like when you got the call about Sharanda Jones ?
BARNETT : Oh , my ( laughter ) .
It is a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You do n't get a heads-up for this call .
And at the time , Sharanda Jones ' clemency petition had been pending for two years - two years of ups and downs , highs and lows , of , is she going to get it ?
Have I only been working this hard and supporting her to get our hopes up ?
Am I going to let her down ?
And it got to the point in December of 2018 ( ph ) , where it was the week before President Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holidays to Hawaii .
And we were all hopeful that President Obama would grant a round of clemencies for the holidays .
We had hope for the holidays .
And Monday of that week passed , Tuesday passed , Wednesday passed , Thursday passed and no clemencies .
And that Friday , I was driving around running errands with my mama .
We were preparing for a Christmas program for girls with incarcerated mothers through Girls Embracing Mothers .
And around noon that day , I got a call , and it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was the day .
It was an attorney from the Office of the Pardon Attorney 's office .
And she said that she was calling to let me know that President Barack Obama had granted executive clemency to Sharanda Jones .
And I still get emotional thinking about that day because that meant that , with the stroke of his pen , President Obama had saved her life .
GROSS : How many years had she been in prison ?
BARNETT : Sharada had been in prison for 16 years and nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was going to be immediately released .
GROSS : And then you called her .
What was her reaction ?
BARNETT : She had no idea what the call was about .
And many times when you 're in prison and you get an unexpected call where you have to go to your counselor 's office for the call , many times people in prison are bracing themselves for bad news because those are usually calls about a death in the family or something tragic happening to your family .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone , she was a tad bit nervous because she was n't sure what to expect .
And I could n't hold it , Terry .
I just screamed , you 're going home .
And she began to cry .
We both began to cry .
And she just kept saying , thank you , thank you , thank you .
And her daughter was expecting to give birth a few months later , you know ?
And Sharanda had been worried .
Her daughter had been worried of how she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mom , you know , without her mom there .
And Sharanda just kept whispering , I get to be home for the baby .
I get to be home for the baby .
GROSS : Sharanda 's mother died in prison of a staph infection after a surgery , and Sharanda was devastated after that .
So her mother was not alive to know that Sharanda received clemency .
BARNETT : She was not .
Her mother was not around .
You know , Sharanda and her mother served 12 years together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fort Worth , Texas .
And to be incarcerated with your mother is one thing , right ?
I ca n't imagine being in prison with my mom and for so long .
And Sharanda 's there with a life sentence .
And what is really helping to give her hope and helping to push her forward to be so positive is , one , it 's innately who she is , but two , her mama .
And it was definitely an extremely heartbreaking and challenging time for Sharada when her mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is Sharanda doing now ?
BARNETT : Sharanda , of course , is spreading joy to everyone that she encounters .
She is such a soulful person , and her smile will brighten any room .
Sharanda has always had a passion for cooking .
She owned her own restaurant before she went to prison .
And her dream had always been , upon her release from prison , to have a food truck where she would be able to hire formerly incarcerated people to work and to serve good food .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sharanda has her food truck .
She 's in the process of designing the inside and planning to launch in the first quarter of 2021 .
And her food truck will be called Fed Up , a play on the ... BARNETT : It 's a play on the federal system ( laughter ) and a play on just being fed up with the system .
But you will truly have your belly fed with some amazing food .
GROSS : Let me reintroduce you here , and then we 'll talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining us , my guest is Brittany Barnett .
Her new memoir is called `` A Knock At Midnight . ''
We 'll be right back after this break .
This is FRESH AIR .
GROSS : This is FRESH AIR .
If you 're just joining us , my guest is Brittany Barnett , a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole or other harsh sentences because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs .
Her clients were convicted of nonviolent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional .
She 's responsible for the release of dozens of people .
You know , we were talking about Sharanda Jones and how she was given clemency by President Obama , who had a whole clemency initiative for people sentenced under mandatory minimums who would n't have gotten these sentences today .
President Trump also granted clemency to two of your clients .
One of them was Alice Johnson , who you became aware of because she was a good friend of Sharanda Jones in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got out , said , you got to free Alice Johnson .
So you took on her case .
The way it got to President Trump was through Kim Kardashian West , who took the case to President Trump by contacting Ivanka Trump first .
I 'm sure you 're so grateful to Kim Kardashian West and President Trump , but I 'm just wondering if you 're ambivalent about the power of celebrity being able to get clemency for someone when somebody else who is also in a similar situation would n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity who went to bat for them .
And you have clients in that position .
BARNETT : Yes , I do not think it should take a celebrity to be able to help free someone from prison .
There is a huge problem this country is facing right now with this crisis of mass incarceration , and it should not take celebrity involvement to pick those locks to human cages .
You know , I 'm grateful that Kim Kardashian West used her platform .
I think she was able to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But I also am hopeful that people are n't getting so blinded by the spotlight of celebrity that they are missing the importance of looking past that spotlight and seeing the hundreds of thousands of people like Alice Johnson who are just as deserving of their freedom .
GROSS : Yeah .
And I should mention , you were on a panel - I forget what the group was called , but it was a panel , like , reviewing cases , like the cases that you take on , people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still in prison , even though those sentences are now considered unconstitutional .
And you became aware just , like , how many people are in this situation .
It 's really overwhelming .
BARNETT : It 's so overwhelming .
And , you know , this whole notion of criminal justice reform , if that 's what people want to call it , it 's popular now .
It 's fashionable .
And many people are talking about it .
It has bipartisan support , you know .
But I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really know about how the system works .
And so it 's one of the reasons why I wanted to write a book .
I wanted to write about what I learned , you know , and share the stories of the extraordinary men and women who are serving these draconian sentences , who are victims of the war on drugs .
And being a part of the Clemency Project 2014 , I came in contact with thousands and thousands , and I came in contact with their loved ones and their families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in prison .
And my mom served 2 1/2 years in prison , Terry , and those were the longest 2 1/2 years of my life .
And I could n't imagine if my mom had 20 , 30 , 40 years , life without parole .
And so in my work , I am very conscious of merging my lived experiences with my legal experience and ensuring that people , directly impacted people , are centered and that their voices are amplified because there are hundreds of thousands of Alice Johnsons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to do to restore a sense of fairness that should be at the heart of this nation 's criminal legal system .
GROSS : Well , let me introduce you here .
If you 're just joining us , my guest is Brittany Barnett .
Her new memoir is called `` A Knock At Midnight . ''
We 'll be back after we take a short break .
I 'm Terry Gross , and this is FRESH AIR .
GROSS : This is FRESH AIR .
I 'm Terry Gross .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brittany Barnett , a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs .
Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes on flimsy evidence and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional .
She 's responsible for freeing dozens of people .
So you got into this work in part because of your mother , who became addicted to crack when you were around 10 .
And as you say , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When she was addicted , how did you watch her personality and behavior change ?
BARNETT : Due to my mom being addicted to crack cocaine , there was a time in my childhood where life was an emotional roller coaster because of her addiction .
There 's something about being 10 , Terry , and watching devastation unfold within your mom your tiny arm 's reach away .
And I felt - and I know that many children in the same situation , for some reason , we feel we can fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
You know , I wanted to save my mama from addiction and not knowing at the time that , one , I could n't fix her , nor was it my responsibility to .
And my mom is my hero .
My mom was a nurse .
She put herself through nursing school .
She cared for my sister and I the best she could .
And then she had a crack cocaine addiction that became much stronger than she was .
And so to see her at the top and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero was definitely a time of my life that carried a deep wound .
You know , there were many mixed emotions of fear , worry , concern , resentment , anger .
And all the while , there was this deep , unconditional love .
GROSS : So the first time your mother was arrested , you had to take a day off from school - you were a freshman in high school at the time - to go to her hearing .
You went with your grandmother .
Describe how your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what your reaction was .
BARNETT : I remember going to the courtroom in Red River County , Texas , where I 'm from , and first having to walk past the statue of a Confederate soldier in the parking lot and climbing the steps to this courthouse with my grandma - my mother 's mama .
And we 're sitting in the courtroom , and I remember the door opening , and I see a sheriff walk through with a cowboy hat on .
And behind him was my mama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She was in a soiled jail uniform .
It was black and white , you know , with those large black and white stripes that you would see in a `` Looney Tunes '' cartoon .
And it was so big and hanging off of her .
And my mama , you know , we looked at each other , and we smiled to keep from crying .
But it was heartbreaking to see my mama like that .
And it made me think , you know , what kind of system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into ?
You know , my mom clearly had a drug addiction .
She committed a crime and was placed on probation .
My mom had never been in trouble before .
And because my mother could not pass her drug test , she was revoking probation and given more probation .
She 'd fail another drug test , given more probation until , ultimately , she was sentenced to serve time in the Texas prison , but not because she had committed any new crimes .
In fact , that the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to call it that , was a crime against herself and her own body from her addiction .
My mother needed help .
She needed rehabilitation and not punishment .
GROSS : You write that when one family member is in prison , the whole family is in prison .
And you founded a group called Girls Embracing Mothers in which girls are funded to take long trips to visit their mothers in prison because it 's sometimes like a two- , three- , four-hour car or bus trip to get there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you experienced this firsthand , having to travel hours to see your mother , and it was very traumatizing for you to see her in those conditions .
Set the scene for us a little bit when you were visiting your mother .
I mean , even just getting into the prison to see her , what was that part like ?
BARNETT : The entire process of visiting a loved one in prison is dehumanizing from the moment you drive onto the prison grounds .
I remember the very first visit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I could n't wait to get there .
It was a 2 1/2-hour trip from Dallas .
And I could n't wait to see my mom , to hug her , to touch her , just to smell her scent .
And I get there only to find out that I could n't get a contact visit with her because she had not been in prison for 60 days yet .
And so I had to visit my mother through the glass .
And anyone who 's ever visited their loved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you just how deceptive that glass is .
It 's about three inches thick , and your loved one is right there on the other side , but it feels like you might as well be on another planet .
And I remember being so disappointed of not getting to touch my mama or just smell her scent , you know ?
And you have to speak to your loved one through the glass using a telephone .
And I just pressed that phone so hard up against my face , Terry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss a sound of my mama 's voice .
And this glass was such a barrier to our maternal bond .
And that first visit was devastating for me of - how did we get here ?
You know , and we laughed a lot , and we cried a lot , and then we laughed to keep from crying even more .
And a sight I 'll never forget is , while I was visiting with my mom and I had my hand up against her hand on the glass , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of lip prints , where some small child had tried to reach their mama before my visit .
And that sight broke me .
GROSS : When you first asked for your mother , you had to give her prison number as opposed to her name .
What was it like for you to memorize her prison number , a number that you reprint in your memoir ?
BARNETT : One-three-seven-four-six-seven-one - that 's a seven-digit number I 'll never forget , is the number assigned to my mother by the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving her prison sentence .
And that 's the first step of dehumanization in the criminal legal system once you 're incarcerated .
And one of the visits to my mom , I walked into the prison visit room , and I remember telling the guard at the front desk that I was there to visit Evelyn Fulbright , and she kind of barked back at me , inmate number .
And it honestly , Terry , took me a minute to realize she was n't going to identify my mama through her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this seven-digit number .
And I had , of course , memorized this number on my way to the prison because I did n't want to forget it and get denied visitation privileges .
And so once I got over my initial shock , I was able to tell her - 1374671 .
GROSS : Let me reintroduce you here .
If you 're just joining us , my guest is Brittney Barnett .
Her new memoir is called `` A Knock At Midnight . ''
We 'll be right back .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is FRESH AIR .
Let 's get back to my interview with Brittany Barnett , a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs .
Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes , typically on flimsy evidence , and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional , but not retroactive .
She also writes in the book about her mother and her mother 's addiction for drugs and her mother 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison during those 2 1/2 years that she was in prison , and she 's stayed sober since .
She 's back to being a nurse .
Is she still active as a nurse ?
BARNETT : Yeah , she actually works as a drug recovery nurse .
GROSS : That 's great .
Do you think that this is an argument that prison helped her break her addiction and resume a good life - a good , healthy life with a really good job helping other people , that - work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her ?
BARNETT : Absolutely not .
I do not feel that my mother needed to go to prison .
My mom needed rehabilitation , not incarceration .
And my mother became sober in prison because she voluntarily took courses and voluntarily began her journey of recovery .
These courses that my mother took to have self-improvement and to overcome her addiction were n't mandatory by the prison system .
And I always say that my mother became sober in spite of prison , not because of it .
GROSS : When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the people you knew were involved with selling drugs in one way or another , including your boyfriend .
Why do you think - at the risk of asking a question that may be obvious , why do you think that so many people in this community - and this was a community in an area that had been a sundown town - in other words , if you were Black and caught after sundown on the streets , you were going to be probably in prison .
So this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracks , and that 's where you spend a lot of your childhood .
So why do you think so many people were involved with drugs - either using , selling , distributing ?
BARNETT : You know , I grew up during a time in rural East Texas where , unfortunately , some form of involvement in drugs was the norm , part of the culture , and you either knew someone selling drugs or you knew someone using drugs .
And I dated a drug dealer my senior year of high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I realize that we did n't know better .
We did n't know what we were up against .
And I had other people - I had friends who sold drugs .
And when I look back during those times of high school , you know , none of the guys or girls that I knew selling drugs woke up one day and said , I want to be a drug dealer .
I saw them selling drugs to eat .
I saw and knew that they were selling drugs to help their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , granted , there are some people who become addicted to the money and the lifestyle , and that 's a whole 'nother story .
But there 's this mechanism of survival that I witnessed .
And me being that proximate to it gave me a different perspective .
GROSS : So your boyfriend did sell drugs when you were a senior in high school .
And you knew that .
Could you have been charged of a crime because he was your boyfriend and you knew that he was selling drugs ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
BARNETT : Knowing what I know now , without a doubt ( laughter ) .
I knew nothing about federal drug conspiracy laws when I was 18 years old .
I knew nothing about this literal guilty by association .
GROSS : Yeah .
So what charges could have you been charged with ?
BARNETT : I could have been charged with federal drug conspiracy because I would drive to Dallas on a couple of occasions as a senior in high school , where I would stop off in east Dallas to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boyfriend would go in the house , come out 10 minutes later and slide a package wrapped in plastic under the front seat in my car .
And I never asked any questions .
He never told me anything about it .
But I knew that there were drugs in that package .
And at 18 years old , I never thought much about it .
I never knew there was this thing called federal drug conspiracy , where I could have been implicated in his wrongdoings .
And learning about federal drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how the system worked and how I could have been in prison just like Sharanda Jones , you know - I was determined to fight for Sharanda Jones ' life as if it were my own , because it was .
GROSS : In a few weeks , if you petition a president for clemency for one of your clients , that president will be President Joe Biden .
Now , Biden was one of the authors of the 1994 crime bill that was signed by President Clinton .
What was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will it be like to petition President Biden ?
BARNETT : The impact of the 1994 crime bill was far-reaching and devastating .
And there is no doubt that after the implementation of that bill , we saw federal prison population skyrocket .
We saw state prison population skyrocket .
And I am hopeful that the Biden administration takes concrete steps to help restore justice to this nation 's criminal legal system .
Many , many people are still in prison suffering unjustly under these draconian drug laws , you know ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to die in prison for laws that have since been deemed unjust is unconscionable to me .
And during my work , Terry , I 've come across some of the most brilliant minds through my clients .
And there is this untapped population of genius that is behind bars and human ingenuity that our nation needs to thrive that has been locked away for decades .
And I 'm hopeful that the Biden administration keeps that human element in mind , sees the heartbeats and works to break chains and restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , Brittany Barnett , thank you so much for talking with us about your work and your life .
I greatly appreciate it .
BARNETT : Thank you so much .
GROSS : Brittany Barnett 's new memoir is called `` A Knock At Midnight . ''
This is FRESH AIR .

Lawyer Combats America's 'Huge Crisis' Of Mass Incarceration
Brittany Barnett works on behalf of people serving harsh sentences as a result of the war on drugs. Nine of her clients have been granted clemency. Her new memoir is A Knock at Midnight.
TERRY GROSS, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Another step in the retreat from the war on drugs was taken Friday when the House of Representatives voted to decriminalize marijuana and expunge federal marijuana convictions dating back to 1971. The bill is considered unlikely to pass the Senate. My guest, Brittany Barnett, is a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole or other harsh sentences because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs. Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes on flimsy evidence and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional.
She secured freedom for dozens of men and women who were sentenced to life. She got involved with this work because her mother, who became addicted to crack, was sent to jail when Barnett was in ninth grade and then later served two years in the Texas state prison system when Barnett was in her early 20s. Seven of Brittany Barnett's clients were granted clemency by President Obama and two by President Trump. She also founded the programs Buried Alive, which works to free people left in prison under outdated Reagan-era laws, and Girls Embracing Mothers, which brings girls to prison to visit their incarcerated mothers and helps mentor those girls.
Barnett has written a new memoir titled "A Knock At Midnight." It's about her work and about her early life growing up in east Texas, where many people she knew were sent to prison. Brittany Barnett, welcome to FRESH AIR. And congratulations on your book. Your first client was Sharanda Jones. And you found her when you were a law student. You were writing a paper and wanted to make your case about people serving these mandatory minimum life sentences. So you Googled - what did you Google, woman, prison (laughter), life sentence?
BRITTANY BARNETT: Yeah. I Googled woman, prison, life sentence.
GROSS: And she's the one who came up. And she's one of the people that you got clemency for. She's out. She's free. It was a very, very long process, started when you were a law student. So explain the charges that she was serving a life sentence for.
BARNETT: Sharanda Jones was set to spend the rest of her natural life in prison for her first ever conviction, felony or otherwise, for federal drug conspiracy. And Sharanda Jones accepts responsibility. She participated in a federal drug conspiracy by way of being what you would sort of call a drug mule. She transported drugs on a handful of occasions for two drug dealers. And Sharanda Jones, being naive to this massive beast of the criminal legal system that we have, she opted to utilize her constitutional right to go to trial.
And when she did, those two drug suppliers that she was transporting the drugs for testified against her at her trial and received lesser sentences in exchange for their testimony. Sharanda Jones was accused of transporting powder cocaine. The co-conspirators who testified against her vouched that it was powder cocaine. However, the judge found that Sharanda Jones knew or should have known that the powder cocaine was going to be rocked up, as they call it, into crack and enhance her sentence under these harsher crack cocaine penalties.
And for people listening who may not understand this 100-1 ratio, it means that, Terry, you could have 500 grams of powder cocaine. I could have only five grams of crack cocaine. And you and I would receive the same sentence in prison. And this harsh 100-1 sentencing disparity came into play in 1986 in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. And it created a hugely disproportionate sentencing that led to, even today, over 80% of the people in federal prison for drug offenses are Black and brown people. And so this law had this racially biased impact that devastated lives and entire communities.
GROSS: She was told by her lawyer that she had a great case and there was basically no way she was going to jail. So she was misled about that - not intentionally misled, but still misled. Had she not gone to trial, do you think she would have given a lesser sentence, like if she copped a plea?
BARNETT: I do. I feel if Sharanda Jones had accepted a plea deal, there's no way she would have received a life sentence in this case. Sharanda Jones' trial lawyer had never tried a federal drug case before. And what many people don't understand is just this wide-reaching net of federal drug conspiracy laws. And these laws simply mean that two or more people come to an agreement to traffic drugs. And in Sharanda's case, for example, there was no physical evidence whatsoever that Sharanda Jones was involved in this drug conspiracy.
There was no controlled buys. There was no surveillance. There were no large sums of cash, no drugs even found. But in the federal court system, all you need is the testimony of co-conspirators and you're held accountable for what we call ghost dope in the federal system. And that ghost dope is dope that's never found, you know? It's dope that only exists based on the testimony of co-conspirators. And that's the most unfortunate part about the entire process because the more drugs you're held accountable for, the more excessive your penalty.
GROSS: Sharanda Jones' mother was in prison, charged with the same conspiracy. On what grounds? Her mother was paraplegic.
BARNETT: It's mind-blowing. Her mother was sent to prison for the same charge as Sharanda Jones. Essentially, I feel her mother was sent to prison because she refused to give up any information on her kids or cooperate. Sharanda Jones' entire family was swept up in this large drug conspiracy. And her mother, as you mentioned, was paralyzed from the neck down and was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison. In fact, 12 of those years she served in the same prison as Sharanda Jones.
GROSS: You managed to get clemency for her from President Obama. Tell us a little bit about what the clemency process is like. What do you have to do? You, basically, have to apply for it.
BARNETT: Yeah. So clemency, to me, is where justice meets mercy. And as I was working on Sharanda's case, I kept trying to find these avenues to get her free and just had to be real with myself, Terry, that there's absolutely no way I can get Sharanda free through the court. And that's when I learned about clemency. And President Barack Obama was in office at the time. And the way I approach my clemency cases is to show the heartbeat. I wanted to show the woman behind the prisoner number that she had been assigned. I wanted to show who she was as a person, a truly center of the human element.
And so I prepared a clemency petition for her. And I applied for clemency for Sharanda Jones in November of 2013. In the normal clemency process, you apply with the office of the pardon attorney. If they recommend a favorable clemency recommendation, it goes to the Department of Justice. And it goes through several levels of review within the Department of Justice, five or six. If they recommend a favorable clemency petition, then it goes the White House counsel and ultimately lands on the president's desk.
GROSS: How do you get the notification that your clemency request has been approved?
BARNETT: You get notified by a call from an attorney in the Office of the Pardon Attorney's office.
GROSS: And what was it like when you got the call about Sharanda Jones?
BARNETT: Oh, my (laughter). It is a day and time I will never forget. You don't get a heads-up for this call. And at the time, Sharanda Jones' clemency petition had been pending for two years - two years of ups and downs, highs and lows, of, is she going to get it? Have I only been working this hard and supporting her to get our hopes up? Am I going to let her down?
And it got to the point in December of 2018 (ph), where it was the week before President Obama made his annual family trip for the holidays to Hawaii. And we were all hopeful that President Obama would grant a round of clemencies for the holidays. We had hope for the holidays. And Monday of that week passed, Tuesday passed, Wednesday passed, Thursday passed and no clemencies.
And that Friday, I was driving around running errands with my mama. We were preparing for a Christmas program for girls with incarcerated mothers through Girls Embracing Mothers. And around noon that day, I got a call, and it was a number from Washington, D.C. And that was the day. It was an attorney from the Office of the Pardon Attorney's office. And she said that she was calling to let me know that President Barack Obama had granted executive clemency to Sharanda Jones. And I still get emotional thinking about that day because that meant that, with the stroke of his pen, President Obama had saved her life.
GROSS: How many years had she been in prison?
BARNETT: Sharada had been in prison for 16 years and nine months when we received the news that she was going to be immediately released.
GROSS: And then you called her. What was her reaction?
BARNETT: She had no idea what the call was about. And many times when you're in prison and you get an unexpected call where you have to go to your counselor's office for the call, many times people in prison are bracing themselves for bad news because those are usually calls about a death in the family or something tragic happening to your family. And so I could tell when she got on the phone, she was a tad bit nervous because she wasn't sure what to expect.
And I couldn't hold it, Terry. I just screamed, you're going home. And she began to cry. We both began to cry. And she just kept saying, thank you, thank you, thank you. And her daughter was expecting to give birth a few months later, you know? And Sharanda had been worried. Her daughter had been worried of how she was going to handle being a first-time mom, you know, without her mom there. And Sharanda just kept whispering, I get to be home for the baby. I get to be home for the baby.
GROSS: Sharanda's mother died in prison of a staph infection after a surgery, and Sharanda was devastated after that. So her mother was not alive to know that Sharanda received clemency.
BARNETT: She was not. Her mother was not around. You know, Sharanda and her mother served 12 years together in prison at Carswell Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas. And to be incarcerated with your mother is one thing, right? I can't imagine being in prison with my mom and for so long. And Sharanda's there with a life sentence. And what is really helping to give her hope and helping to push her forward to be so positive is, one, it's innately who she is, but two, her mama. And it was definitely an extremely heartbreaking and challenging time for Sharada when her mother passed away in 2012.
GROSS: What is Sharanda doing now?
BARNETT: Sharanda, of course, is spreading joy to everyone that she encounters. She is such a soulful person, and her smile will brighten any room. Sharanda has always had a passion for cooking. She owned her own restaurant before she went to prison. And her dream had always been, upon her release from prison, to have a food truck where she would be able to hire formerly incarcerated people to work and to serve good food. And I am so happy to say that Sharanda has her food truck. She's in the process of designing the inside and planning to launch in the first quarter of 2021. And her food truck will be called Fed Up, a play on the...
GROSS: (Laughter).
BARNETT: It's a play on the federal system (laughter) and a play on just being fed up with the system. But you will truly have your belly fed with some amazing food.
GROSS: Let me reintroduce you here, and then we'll talk some more. If you're just joining us, my guest is Brittany Barnett. Her new memoir is called "A Knock At Midnight." We'll be right back after this break. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. If you're just joining us, my guest is Brittany Barnett, a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole or other harsh sentences because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs. Her clients were convicted of nonviolent crimes on flimsy evidence and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional. She's responsible for the release of dozens of people.
You know, we were talking about Sharanda Jones and how she was given clemency by President Obama, who had a whole clemency initiative for people sentenced under mandatory minimums who wouldn't have gotten these sentences today. President Trump also granted clemency to two of your clients. One of them was Alice Johnson, who you became aware of because she was a good friend of Sharanda Jones in prison, and Sharanda, when she got out, said, you got to free Alice Johnson. So you took on her case. The way it got to President Trump was through Kim Kardashian West, who took the case to President Trump by contacting Ivanka Trump first.
I'm sure you're so grateful to Kim Kardashian West and President Trump, but I'm just wondering if you're ambivalent about the power of celebrity being able to get clemency for someone when somebody else who is also in a similar situation wouldn't have that opportunity because there's no celebrity who went to bat for them. And you have clients in that position.
BARNETT: Yes, I do not think it should take a celebrity to be able to help free someone from prison. There is a huge problem this country is facing right now with this crisis of mass incarceration, and it should not take celebrity involvement to pick those locks to human cages. You know, I'm grateful that Kim Kardashian West used her platform. I think she was able to help shine a light and raise awareness. But I also am hopeful that people aren't getting so blinded by the spotlight of celebrity that they are missing the importance of looking past that spotlight and seeing the hundreds of thousands of people like Alice Johnson who are just as deserving of their freedom.
GROSS: Yeah. And I should mention, you were on a panel - I forget what the group was called, but it was a panel, like, reviewing cases, like the cases that you take on, people who are sentenced during the mandatory minimum era and are still in prison, even though those sentences are now considered unconstitutional. And you became aware just, like, how many people are in this situation. It's really overwhelming.
BARNETT: It's so overwhelming. And, you know, this whole notion of criminal justice reform, if that's what people want to call it, it's popular now. It's fashionable. And many people are talking about it. It has bipartisan support, you know. But I'm always still surprised at how little people really know about how the system works. And so it's one of the reasons why I wanted to write a book. I wanted to write about what I learned, you know, and share the stories of the extraordinary men and women who are serving these draconian sentences, who are victims of the war on drugs.
And being a part of the Clemency Project 2014, I came in contact with thousands and thousands, and I came in contact with their loved ones and their families. And I remembered when my mom was in prison. And my mom served 2 1/2 years in prison, Terry, and those were the longest 2 1/2 years of my life. And I couldn't imagine if my mom had 20, 30, 40 years, life without parole.
And so in my work, I am very conscious of merging my lived experiences with my legal experience and ensuring that people, directly impacted people, are centered and that their voices are amplified because there are hundreds of thousands of Alice Johnsons. And we have a lot of work to do to restore a sense of fairness that should be at the heart of this nation's criminal legal system.
GROSS: Well, let me introduce you here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Brittany Barnett. Her new memoir is called "A Knock At Midnight." We'll be back after we take a short break. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to my interview with Brittany Barnett, a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs. Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes on flimsy evidence and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional. She's responsible for freeing dozens of people.
So you got into this work in part because of your mother, who became addicted to crack when you were around 10. And as you say, she served 2 1/2 years in prison. When she was addicted, how did you watch her personality and behavior change?
BARNETT: Due to my mom being addicted to crack cocaine, there was a time in my childhood where life was an emotional roller coaster because of her addiction. There's something about being 10, Terry, and watching devastation unfold within your mom your tiny arm's reach away. And I felt - and I know that many children in the same situation, for some reason, we feel we can fix our parents, that we can save them. You know, I wanted to save my mama from addiction and not knowing at the time that, one, I couldn't fix her, nor was it my responsibility to. And my mom is my hero. My mom was a nurse. She put herself through nursing school. She cared for my sister and I the best she could. And then she had a crack cocaine addiction that became much stronger than she was. And so to see her at the top and then to see my hero on ground zero was definitely a time of my life that carried a deep wound. You know, there were many mixed emotions of fear, worry, concern, resentment, anger. And all the while, there was this deep, unconditional love.
GROSS: So the first time your mother was arrested, you had to take a day off from school - you were a freshman in high school at the time - to go to her hearing. You went with your grandmother. Describe how your mother was brought out into the courtroom and what your reaction was.
BARNETT: I remember going to the courtroom in Red River County, Texas, where I'm from, and first having to walk past the statue of a Confederate soldier in the parking lot and climbing the steps to this courthouse with my grandma - my mother's mama. And we're sitting in the courtroom, and I remember the door opening, and I see a sheriff walk through with a cowboy hat on. And behind him was my mama. And I will never forget that sight. She was in a soiled jail uniform. It was black and white, you know, with those large black and white stripes that you would see in a "Looney Tunes" cartoon. And it was so big and hanging off of her. And my mama, you know, we looked at each other, and we smiled to keep from crying.
But it was heartbreaking to see my mama like that. And it made me think, you know, what kind of system is this that she's being brought into? You know, my mom clearly had a drug addiction. She committed a crime and was placed on probation. My mom had never been in trouble before. And because my mother could not pass her drug test, she was revoking probation and given more probation. She'd fail another drug test, given more probation until, ultimately, she was sentenced to serve time in the Texas prison, but not because she had committed any new crimes. In fact, that the only crime she had committed, if you want to call it that, was a crime against herself and her own body from her addiction. My mother needed help. She needed rehabilitation and not punishment.
GROSS: You write that when one family member is in prison, the whole family is in prison. And you founded a group called Girls Embracing Mothers in which girls are funded to take long trips to visit their mothers in prison because it's sometimes like a two-, three-, four-hour car or bus trip to get there. And you founded this group because you experienced this firsthand, having to travel hours to see your mother, and it was very traumatizing for you to see her in those conditions. Set the scene for us a little bit when you were visiting your mother. I mean, even just getting into the prison to see her, what was that part like?
BARNETT: The entire process of visiting a loved one in prison is dehumanizing from the moment you drive onto the prison grounds. I remember the very first visit to my mom while she was in prison. And I couldn't wait to get there. It was a 2 1/2-hour trip from Dallas. And I couldn't wait to see my mom, to hug her, to touch her, just to smell her scent. And I get there only to find out that I couldn't get a contact visit with her because she had not been in prison for 60 days yet. And so I had to visit my mother through the glass. And anyone who's ever visited their loved one in prison through the glass can tell you just how deceptive that glass is. It's about three inches thick, and your loved one is right there on the other side, but it feels like you might as well be on another planet.
And I remember being so disappointed of not getting to touch my mama or just smell her scent, you know? And you have to speak to your loved one through the glass using a telephone. And I just pressed that phone so hard up against my face, Terry, because I did not want to miss a sound of my mama's voice. And this glass was such a barrier to our maternal bond. And that first visit was devastating for me of - how did we get here? You know, and we laughed a lot, and we cried a lot, and then we laughed to keep from crying even more. And a sight I'll never forget is, while I was visiting with my mom and I had my hand up against her hand on the glass, and I saw to my right a tiny set of lip prints, where some small child had tried to reach their mama before my visit. And that sight broke me.
GROSS: When you first asked for your mother, you had to give her prison number as opposed to her name. What was it like for you to memorize her prison number, a number that you reprint in your memoir?
BARNETT: One-three-seven-four-six-seven-one - that's a seven-digit number I'll never forget, is the number assigned to my mother by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice when she began serving her prison sentence. And that's the first step of dehumanization in the criminal legal system once you're incarcerated. And one of the visits to my mom, I walked into the prison visit room, and I remember telling the guard at the front desk that I was there to visit Evelyn Fulbright, and she kind of barked back at me, inmate number.
And it honestly, Terry, took me a minute to realize she wasn't going to identify my mama through her name, Evelyn Fulbright. She needed this seven-digit number. And I had, of course, memorized this number on my way to the prison because I didn't want to forget it and get denied visitation privileges. And so once I got over my initial shock, I was able to tell her - 1374671.
GROSS: Let me reintroduce you here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Brittney Barnett. Her new memoir is called "A Knock At Midnight." We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to my interview with Brittany Barnett, a lawyer who has been fighting for people serving life sentences without parole because of the mandatory minimum sentences legislated as part of the war on drugs. Her clients were convicted of nonviolent drug crimes, typically on flimsy evidence, and given sentences that have since been deemed unfair and unconstitutional, but not retroactive. She also writes in the book about her mother and her mother's addiction for drugs and her mother's incarceration.
Your mother got sober in prison during those 2 1/2 years that she was in prison, and she's stayed sober since. She's back to being a nurse. Is she still active as a nurse?
BARNETT: Yeah, she actually works as a drug recovery nurse.
GROSS: That's great. Do you think that this is an argument that prison helped her break her addiction and resume a good life - a good, healthy life with a really good job helping other people, that - work, I'm sure, is fulfilling to her?
BARNETT: Absolutely not. I do not feel that my mother needed to go to prison. My mom needed rehabilitation, not incarceration. And my mother became sober in prison because she voluntarily took courses and voluntarily began her journey of recovery. These courses that my mother took to have self-improvement and to overcome her addiction weren't mandatory by the prison system. And I always say that my mother became sober in spite of prison, not because of it.
GROSS: When you were growing up in East Texas, many of the people you knew were involved with selling drugs in one way or another, including your boyfriend. Why do you think - at the risk of asking a question that may be obvious, why do you think that so many people in this community - and this was a community in an area that had been a sundown town - in other words, if you were Black and caught after sundown on the streets, you were going to be probably in prison. So this was a small Black community between two railroad tracks, and that's where you spend a lot of your childhood. So why do you think so many people were involved with drugs - either using, selling, distributing?
BARNETT: You know, I grew up during a time in rural East Texas where, unfortunately, some form of involvement in drugs was the norm, part of the culture, and you either knew someone selling drugs or you knew someone using drugs. And I dated a drug dealer my senior year of high school. And looking back now, I realize that we didn't know better. We didn't know what we were up against. And I had other people - I had friends who sold drugs.
And when I look back during those times of high school, you know, none of the guys or girls that I knew selling drugs woke up one day and said, I want to be a drug dealer. I saw them selling drugs to eat. I saw and knew that they were selling drugs to help their mom with the light bill. Now, granted, there are some people who become addicted to the money and the lifestyle, and that's a whole 'nother story. But there's this mechanism of survival that I witnessed. And me being that proximate to it gave me a different perspective.
GROSS: So your boyfriend did sell drugs when you were a senior in high school. And you knew that. Could you have been charged of a crime because he was your boyfriend and you knew that he was selling drugs? Could you have ended up in prison?
BARNETT: Knowing what I know now, without a doubt (laughter). I knew nothing about federal drug conspiracy laws when I was 18 years old. I knew nothing about this literal guilty by association.
GROSS: Yeah. So what charges could have you been charged with?
BARNETT: I could have been charged with federal drug conspiracy because I would drive to Dallas on a couple of occasions as a senior in high school, where I would stop off in east Dallas to a white clapboard house. And my boyfriend would go in the house, come out 10 minutes later and slide a package wrapped in plastic under the front seat in my car. And I never asked any questions. He never told me anything about it. But I knew that there were drugs in that package.
And at 18 years old, I never thought much about it. I never knew there was this thing called federal drug conspiracy, where I could have been implicated in his wrongdoings. And learning about federal drug laws in law school and learning more about how the system worked and how I could have been in prison just like Sharanda Jones, you know - I was determined to fight for Sharanda Jones' life as if it were my own, because it was.
GROSS: In a few weeks, if you petition a president for clemency for one of your clients, that president will be President Joe Biden. Now, Biden was one of the authors of the 1994 crime bill that was signed by President Clinton. What was the impact of that crime bill? And what will it be like to petition President Biden?
BARNETT: The impact of the 1994 crime bill was far-reaching and devastating. And there is no doubt that after the implementation of that bill, we saw federal prison population skyrocket. We saw state prison population skyrocket. And I am hopeful that the Biden administration takes concrete steps to help restore justice to this nation's criminal legal system. Many, many people are still in prison suffering unjustly under these draconian drug laws, you know?
And to think that there are people set to die in prison for laws that have since been deemed unjust is unconscionable to me. And during my work, Terry, I've come across some of the most brilliant minds through my clients. And there is this untapped population of genius that is behind bars and human ingenuity that our nation needs to thrive that has been locked away for decades. And I'm hopeful that the Biden administration keeps that human element in mind, sees the heartbeats and works to break chains and restore families and entire communities.
GROSS: Well, Brittany Barnett, thank you so much for talking with us about your work and your life. I greatly appreciate it.
BARNETT: Thank you so much.
GROSS: Brittany Barnett's new memoir is called "A Knock At Midnight." This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF LIONEL HAMPTON'S "WHITE CHRISTMAS")
Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.


npr--2020-12-09--Canada Authorizes Use Of Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine

Canadian health officials have authorized use of the country 's first COVID-19 vaccine .
Health Canada announced the move Wednesday , saying a `` thorough , independent review of the evidence '' determined that the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech meets the `` stringent safety , efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada . ''
The move makes Canada just the third country to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for general use after the U.K. greenlighted it last week and began widely administering immunizations on Tuesday .
Bahrain also granted an emergency use authorization to the vaccine last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency authorization of the vaccine could come within days .
In an analysis released Tuesday , the Food and Drug Administration affirmed the vaccine 's safety and its 95 % effectiveness at preventing the coronavirus .
An FDA advisory panel meeting Thursday is expected to support emergency use of the vaccine in the United States .
Then a final authorization decision will be up to agency officials .
It 's important to note that in Canada , as in the U.K. — and likely soon in the U.S. — regulators are only authorizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A formal approval requires more comprehensive data and regulatory review .
As for Canada , Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he expects 249,000 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to be on hand by the end of the year .
Other vaccines , such as one produced by Moderna , are also under review by Canadian health authorities , who said at a news conference Wednesday that they expect to issue further decisions on those soon .

Canada Authorizes Use Of Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine
Enlarge this image toggle caption Hugh Hastings/Getty Images Hugh Hastings/Getty Images
Canadian health officials have authorized use of the country's first COVID-19 vaccine. Health Canada announced the move Wednesday, saying a "thorough, independent review of the evidence" determined that the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech meets the "stringent safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada."
The move makes Canada just the third country to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for general use after the U.K. greenlighted it last week and began widely administering immunizations on Tuesday. Bahrain also granted an emergency use authorization to the vaccine last week.
In the U.S., meanwhile, emergency authorization of the vaccine could come within days. In an analysis released Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration affirmed the vaccine's safety and its 95% effectiveness at preventing the coronavirus.
An FDA advisory panel meeting Thursday is expected to support emergency use of the vaccine in the United States. Then a final authorization decision will be up to agency officials.
It's important to note that in Canada, as in the U.K. — and likely soon in the U.S. — regulators are only authorizing provisional use in response to the pandemic. A formal approval requires more comprehensive data and regulatory review.
As for Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he expects 249,000 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to be on hand by the end of the year. Other vaccines, such as one produced by Moderna, are also under review by Canadian health authorities, who said at a news conference Wednesday that they expect to issue further decisions on those soon.


npr--2020-12-09--McKinsey Apologizes For Helping Purdue Pharma 'Turbocharge' Opioid Sales

One of the world 's most influential corporate consulting firms , McKinsey & Company , says it regrets efforts to boost sales of OxyContin and other highly addictive opioids .
The rare apology follows revelations in documents made public last month for the first time that showed McKinsey working closely with Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family who sat on Purdue 's board .
As sales of high-risk opioids declined because of public health concerns , McKinsey developed a series of proposals , outlined in memos and planning documents reviewed by NPR , designed to `` turbocharge '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse , '' said the firm in a statement posted on its website .
One of McKinsey 's proposals , outlined in a planning document but apparently never implemented , involved making secret payments to insurance companies up to $ 14,000 whenever a patient became addicted or overdosed in an `` event '' linked to Purdue 's opioids .
The document was made public in November by attorneys representing states suing Purdue Pharma .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prevention , more than 230,000 Americans died from prescription opioid-related overdoses alone during the addiction crisis .
In one internal email sent in July 2018 , a McKinsey executive appears to acknowledge the growing legal risk faced by Purdue Pharma over its opioid business .
`` It probably makes sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should be doing anything other that [ sic ] eliminating all our documents and emails , '' McKinsey senior partner Martin Elling wrote in an email sent to another executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get tougher here someone might turn to us . ''
The documents , released as part of a tsunami of civil lawsuits hitting Purdue Pharma , have sparked growing criticism of McKinsey , which also has large contracts with the federal government .
`` McKinsey 's abhorrent conduct also demands that Congress consider broader action , '' said Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo.
, in a letter to the company last week .
`` No firm that proposes paying kickbacks for overdose deaths should receive a single cent from U.S .
taxpayers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ email exchange about `` eliminating '' documents `` raises the prospect that McKinsey may also have engaged in obstruction of justice . ''
In a statement posted Sunday on its website , McKinsey said its work with Purdue Pharma was `` designed to support the legal prescription and use of opioids for patients with legitimate medical needs . ''
But the firm added that its decision-making `` fell short '' of the company 's ethical standards and failed to `` take into account the broader context and implication '' of its work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have been undertaking a full review of the work in question , including into the 2018 email exchange which referenced potential deletion of documents , '' McKinsey 's statement said .
Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy last year .
Members of the Sackler family have proposed giving up control of the firm and paying $ 3 billion out of their personal fortunes to settle all claims against them .
More than two dozen state attorneys general have rejected that proposal , in part because of new revelations in internal documents suggesting the Sacklers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Memos , emails and other planning documents show much of McKinsey 's work involved direct consultation with Sacklers who sat on the company 's board of directors .
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform has scheduled a hearing next week on Purdue Pharma and five members of the Sackler family who sat on the company 's board to investigate their role in the opioid crisis .
Committee chair Carolyn Maloney , D-N.Y. , has requested members of the Sackler family and current corporate executives from Purdue Pharma testify .
The session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 .

McKinsey Apologizes For Helping Purdue Pharma 'Turbocharge' Opioid Sales
Enlarge this image Drew Angerer/Getty Images Drew Angerer/Getty Images
One of the world's most influential corporate consulting firms, McKinsey & Company, says it regrets efforts to boost sales of OxyContin and other highly addictive opioids.
The rare apology follows revelations in documents made public last month for the first time that showed McKinsey working closely with Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family who sat on Purdue's board.
As sales of high-risk opioids declined because of public health concerns, McKinsey developed a series of proposals, outlined in memos and planning documents reviewed by NPR, designed to "turbocharge" profits once again.
"We recognize that we did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse," said the firm in a statement posted on its website.
One of McKinsey's proposals, outlined in a planning document but apparently never implemented, involved making secret payments to insurance companies up to $14,000 whenever a patient became addicted or overdosed in an "event" linked to Purdue's opioids.
The document was made public in November by attorneys representing states suing Purdue Pharma.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 230,000 Americans died from prescription opioid-related overdoses alone during the addiction crisis.
In one internal email sent in July 2018, a McKinsey executive appears to acknowledge the growing legal risk faced by Purdue Pharma over its opioid business.
"It probably makes sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should be doing anything other that [sic] eliminating all our documents and emails," McKinsey senior partner Martin Elling wrote in an email sent to another executive at the company. "As things get tougher here someone might turn to us."
The documents, released as part of a tsunami of civil lawsuits hitting Purdue Pharma, have sparked growing criticism of McKinsey, which also has large contracts with the federal government.
"McKinsey's abhorrent conduct also demands that Congress consider broader action," said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., in a letter to the company last week. "No firm that proposes paying kickbacks for overdose deaths should receive a single cent from U.S. taxpayers."
Hawley also wrote that the 2018 email exchange about "eliminating" documents "raises the prospect that McKinsey may also have engaged in obstruction of justice."
In a statement posted Sunday on its website, McKinsey said its work with Purdue Pharma was "designed to support the legal prescription and use of opioids for patients with legitimate medical needs."
But the firm added that its decision-making "fell short" of the company's ethical standards and failed to "take into account the broader context and implication" of its work to boost Purdue's opioid sales.
"We have been undertaking a full review of the work in question, including into the 2018 email exchange which referenced potential deletion of documents," McKinsey's statement said.
Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy last year. Members of the Sackler family have proposed giving up control of the firm and paying $3 billion out of their personal fortunes to settle all claims against them.
More than two dozen state attorneys general have rejected that proposal, in part because of new revelations in internal documents suggesting the Sacklers played a more direct role in decision-making.
Memos, emails and other planning documents show much of McKinsey's work involved direct consultation with Sacklers who sat on the company's board of directors.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform has scheduled a hearing next week on Purdue Pharma and five members of the Sackler family who sat on the company's board to investigate their role in the opioid crisis.
Committee chair Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., has requested members of the Sackler family and current corporate executives from Purdue Pharma testify. The session is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Dec. 15.


npr--2020-12-10--FDA Advisers Weigh Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine

The stunning toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is why there 's so much attention focused today on a meeting of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration who will be considering the vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech .
These experts will weigh the benefits and risks of clearing the companies ' COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in the U.S. , which would make it the first available for immunization against the disease .
The key question : Is the vaccine safe and effective enough to given to millions of Americans ?
On Tuesday , the FDA released its analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those documents and testimony from agency and company officials at will be at the heart of this daylong discussion .
The FDA analysis builds a case that this vaccine should be authorized for emergency use , a quicker approach than the one for a full-blown marketing approval .
One goal for the public meeting is to provide transparency about the evidence for the vaccine .
Another is to build confidence in the process .
The advisers are likely to endorse the vaccine .
At another public meeting last Friday , the chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monto , said , `` Unless there are surprises ... there will not be an issue in terms of efficacy . ''
The FDA analysis found the Pfizer-BioNTech 95 % effective .
As for safety , there will no doubt be questions about side effects but the FDA found `` no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an EUA , '' or emergency use authorization .
In-depth panel discussion is scheduled to start a little after 3 p.m .
ET and will culminate in votes on questions posed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjourn by 5:15 .

FDA Panel Recommends COVID-19 Vaccine For Emergency Use
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Updated at 8:22 p.m. ET
In a 17-4 vote, with one abstention, a panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration recommended Thursday that the COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech be authorized for emergency use during the coronavirus pandemic.
The vote in favor of the vaccine was taken to answer the agency's question: Do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its risks for use in people age 16 and older?
The agency typically follows the advice of its expert advisers.
A quick FDA decision is expected, given the state of the pandemic, the 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing COVID-19 and a determination by the FDA that there are no specific safety concerns that would stand in the way of emergency use.
The stunning toll of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that this is the first vaccine to make it this far is why so much attention was focused on the Thursday meeting.
On Tuesday, the FDA released its analysis, along with an information packet from Pfizer. Those documents and testimony from agency and company officials Thursday were part of the daylong discussion.
The FDA analysis builds a case that this vaccine should be authorized for emergency use, a quicker approach than the one for full-blown marketing approval.
One goal of the public meeting was to provide transparency about the evidence for the vaccine. Another was to build confidence in the process.
At an earlier public meeting, last Friday, the acting chair of this advisory committee, Dr. Arnold Monto, said, "Unless there are surprises ... there will not be an issue in terms of efficacy." During Thursday's meeting, there were no surprises concerning the effectiveness of the vaccine.
The panel had questions about the limited data on some populations. For example, there's little advice to give pregnant women about whether to get the vaccine. Also, there was limited clinical data about the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds.
There were also questions about the severe allergic reactions that two people in the U.K. had after getting the vaccine. The FDA wants more information to understand what happened.
The FDA's pre-meeting analysis found "no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an EUA," or emergency use authorization. That conclusion was affirmed in agency presentations during the meeting.
And in the end, the panel agreed to recommend that an EUA be granted.
Joe Palca contributed to this report.


npr--2020-12-10--Coronavirus Is Surging: How Severe Is Your State's Outbreak?

Coronavirus Is Surging : How Severe Is Your State 's Outbreak ?
More than 15 million people in the U.S. have had confirmed coronavirus infections and more than 280,000 have died of COVID-19 .
Tens of thousands of new cases are reported daily nationwide .
In the graphics below , explore the trends in your state .
View the data via a heat map ( immediately below ) , curve charts , a table of state-by-state trends over four weeks , or a map of total cases and deaths .
The map above shows the risk of infection in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capita .
The consortium of researchers and public health experts who developed these risk levels advises states in the red category to issue stay-home orders .
They advise orange states to consider stay-home orders , along with increased testing and contact tracing .
Yellow states need to keep up social distancing and mask usage , and all states should continue testing and contact tracing .
To compare state outbreaks , the chart above graphs trend lines for average new daily cases and deaths against each state 's totals to date .
This type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth or decline relative to the overall size of its outbreak .
When both new and total case and death counts grow quickly , the curves bend upward .
As new cases and deaths slow , the curves level or bend down .
In New York , the curve rose sharply before reaching over 170,000 total cases in April .
New cases fell from about 10,000 per day in mid-April to under 900 a day most of the summer , before starting to rise in the fall .
Explore the map above to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country for both new confirmed cases and reported deaths from COVID-19 .
New York was the original epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. As of mid October , California , Florida and Texas surpass New York for total cases to date , though New York still has the highest death total .
Click here to see a global map of confirmed cases and deaths .
To show trends , the table below shows the change in average new cases per day in each state , week over week for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of red have growing outbreaks ; those in shades of green , are declining .
The graphics on this page pull from data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University from several sources , including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ; the World Health Organization ; national , state and local government health departments ; 1point3acres ; and local media reports .
The JHU team automates its data uploads and regularly checks them for anomalies .
This may result in occasional data discrepancies on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and updates its feeds .
State-by-state recovery data are unavailable at this time .
There may be discrepancies between what you see here and what you see on your local health department 's website .
Figures shown do not include cases on cruise ships .
Fluctuations in the numbers may happen as health authorities review old cases and or update their methodologies .
For example , in early June , Michigan health authorities started including probable cases in its totals .
This resulted in a brief spike in the state 's daily numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconcile the historical data .
On June 25 , New Jersey included 1,854 previously-unreported probable deaths in its totals , resulting in a spike in the state 's daily death numbers .
On Sept. 2 , Massachusetts changed its methodology for counting probable cases , which lowered its overall case and death numbers .
The JHU team maintains a list of such changes .
This story was originally published on March 16 , 2020 .
Elena Renken was a co-author on that version .
Sean McMinn and Audrey Carlsen contributed to this story @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Tracking the coronavirus around the U.S.: See how your state is doing
Loading...
Note: This page was last updated on Feb. 1, 2023. It will no longer be updated. For current data on COVID cases and deaths, demographics, and hospitalizations, consult the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of Feb. 1, there have been more than 101 million confirmed coronavirus infections in the U.S. and more than 1 million people have died of COVID-19. In the graphics below, explore the trends in your state.
Loading...
The above charts show average new cases per 100,000 people for each state over the last 12 months.
Note: Actual cases may be substantially higher, since many who test positive with at-home tests don't report their cases.
For additional data about COVID-19 in the U.S, including cases and deaths, demographics, and hospitalizations, consult the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
To show trends, the table below shows the change in average new cases per day in each state, week over week for the last 28 days. States marked in shades of red have growing outbreaks; those in shades of green, are declining.
Loading...
Methodology
The graphics on this page pull from data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University from several sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the World Health Organization; national, state and local government health departments; 1point3acres; and local media reports.
The JHU team automates its data uploads and regularly checks them for anomalies. This may result in occasional data discrepancies on this page as the JHU team resolves anomalies and updates its feeds. There may be discrepancies between what you see here and what you see on your local health department's website. Figures shown do not include cases on cruise ships.
Fluctuations in the numbers may happen as health authorities review old cases, process testing backlogs or update their methodologies. The JHU team maintains a list of such changes.
This story was originally published on March 16, 2020. Elena Renken was a co-author on that version. Sean McMinn and Audrey Carlsen contributed to this story. Carmel Wroth edited this story.