-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled on this sentencing case yesterday. Kennedy and Stevens -- hardly known as civil libertarians -- dissented. The Court reversed the 9th Circuit, ruling the lower court was wrong to say that such a practice "would make the jury's findings of fact pointless." The court declared: "Sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction."
Double jeopardy? What's that?
Of course it was a drug crime. The defendant, Vernon Watts, was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to distribute. To paraphrase another saying: "'Drug Trafficking Offense' is the root passphrase to the Constitution."
IANAL, but this ruling is not as bad as it may seem. If I read it correctly, the ruling says that a judge is allowed to consider offenses related to the crime for which the defendant was convicted regardless of whether or not the defendant was acquitted of those charges. Judges are allowed to consider past criminal convictions or behavior relevant to the crime for which the defendant was convicted during sentencing. Sentencing guidelines instruct the judge on how severe or lenient a sentence should be based on the severity of the offense and past criminal record. These facts to not have to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. In one case, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute but was found not guilty of possession of a firearm related to a drug charge (apparently, this is a crime). The jury decided that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the gun had anything to do with the drug offense. However, the defendant was sentenced according to the recommended sentence for someone convicted of a drug offense when there is a weapon involved. If possession of a firearm related to a drug offense had not been a crime, the judge would have been able to give the defendant the same sentence without having proof that there was not reasonable doubt as to whether the gun was related to the drug offense. All this ruling really does is it gives the judge the power to consider all facts, including those found by a jury to be doubtable, when sentencing the defendant. It doesn't allow the judge to sentence the defendant to a higher punishment than the maximum sentence. This is a power that judges have when the defendant does something legal, but has connection to the actual crime. This ruling just extends that power to include when the action in question is illegal. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMtR1hizIPc7jvyFpAQH00ggApVYaNz9FRqQvfgG31vRfTjW5GX8W7YXJ BIBhoSlh47vzTiFpKGKbEj8VZBk1+khxQTSMNkuau86GZ3Km4JEDMLbBNiJwr3ad AhcbUHLeIOtoGSnDzNisbmQBv9JVXN9uWLoP9Zq/PWT6XWcR73aX6AkY53n2lYsG ycbzc7CVGTn3DpIjJeyjkodCVTdJdRNm8zi46v7NH8UyqeS7huRJ0YkwlKqS87It 2IedvlNyc3ZVyTPUX+2pu3NxncefinbnKfCnslJl4A4wKfnVQGLgYDDEgsjoQwPT kbAuOHULX+iExWcUD+1Zrp2xaOfo8Oxy9XfwSeAwf08mpj6tFkwQxA== =cFSt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----