Sentencing: Supreme Court Passes on Chance to End Punishments for Acquitted Crimes
In a March 31 order , the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a man who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an offense of which he was acquitted. In refusing to hear the appeal, the high court let stand the federal judicial practice of punishing defendants convicted of one crime by crafting sentences based also on "acquitted conduct" -- in effect punishing them for crimes in which they were found not guilty.
Supreme Court sanctions supreme injustice
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Hurn should have faced about three years in prison for the powder cocaine conviction. But federal prosecutors argued he should be punished for both offenses with a 20-year sentence, and US District Court Judge John Shabazz agreed. Saying there was good reason to think Hurn was guilty of the crack charges, he sentenced him to nearly 18 years.
"This was an extraordinary increase," said Elizabeth Perkins, a lawyer in Madison who filed his appeal. "Allowing a sentencing judge to disregard the verdict of the jury is very disappointing," she told the Los Angeles Times.
But it's business as usual in the Alice in Wonderland world of the federal courts. Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court endorsed sentencing for acquitted conduct in a California case, but only in a short unsigned opinion. Under the court's rule, judges can sentence defendants by "relying on the entire range of conduct" presented by prosecutors, not just the charges that resulted in guilty verdicts. That has given judges the freedom to send people to prison for years for charges of which they were not convicted.
Hurn had appealed to the appeals court in Chicago, which agreed that his sentence was "based almost entirely on acquitted conduct," but upheld it nonetheless, citing the earlier Supreme Court ruling.
Hurn appealed to the Supreme Court last fall, with his lawyers arguing that prosecutors shouldn't be able to "execute an end run" around the jury. They cited a series of Supreme Court rulings in recent years that severely limited judges' ability to sentence defendants based on conduct not proven before a jury, but the Supreme Court didn't want to touch it. Instead, it rejected without comment even hearing the appeal.
"This is very disappointing," Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor who is an expert on sentencing, told the Times. "They have dodged this for now, but eventually the Supreme Court will have to grapple with this again."
digg
reddit
This is not an anomaly
Comment posted by sicntired on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 4:45amsicntired This case is such a miscarriage of justice but is unfortunately not uncommon.The word drugs seems to cause a complete disconnect in the brains of many judges and law enforcement officials.Did the Supreme court even read the details of this case or did they just read crack and toss it?The current court is a pretty scary bunch any way.In a recent case at our border the law said that it was the taking out of a single load that was a victory in the drug war.They've certainly lowered their goals in the last few years.2008 was supposed to be the year that the planet was to be rid of the drug problem.(according to the UN)They lowered their goals as well as they would have looked pretty foolish if they hadn't.Police in RIO said that they were like insecticide after going in and killing eight people in what were described as drug raids by the cops but were called executions of the poor by the local media watch group.There are so many horrific crimes being committed in the name of the drug war.I guess we can count our blessings that it hasn't gotten to where they're killing people without cause here yet,although 15 years in prison for some dope you were acquitted of having is a kind of living death.This guy will be a totally different person in 15 years.