|
|
| Reversal Sought on Drug Ruling |
|
Posted by FoM on August 24, 2001 at 15:31:06 PT By Howard Mintz, Mercury News Source: San Jose Mercury News 
Warning that the federal government's ability to prosecute major drug traffickers is at stake, the U.S. Justice Department moved Thursday to wipe out a recent federal appeals court ruling that struck down one of the key weapons in the war on drugs.In an extraordinary request, the U.S. attorneys from nine Western states, including California, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately withdraw an Aug. 10 ruling that found Congress' 1984 sentencing scheme to punish major drug traffickers unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit ruling, which has sweeping implications for thousands of drug cases across the West, invalidated the principal means federal prosecutors have used since the Reagan administration to punish drug dealers. `Threatens sentences' ``The panel's decision will seriously hamper the government's ability to prosecute large-scale drug trafficking in this circuit,'' Bush administration lawyers wrote. ``The panel's decision threatens to invalidate countless sentences and will result in a deluge of litigation in the district courts of this circuit.'' The Justice Department's urgent legal maneuver stems from a 2-1 9th Circuit decision in a Seattle case involving convicted methamphetamine dealer Calvin Buckland. Federal drug laws have relied heavily on sentencing defendants based on the amount of drugs involved in a case, but the federal appeals court found that unconstitutional. Among other things, the 9th Circuit struck down the 1984 law because it empowered a judge, instead of a jury, to increase prison sentences based on evidence introduced after trial about the amount of drugs associated with a defendant. The law allowed judges to increase sentences beyond the statutory maximum based on drug amounts. Minimum sentences In striking down the statute used to impose these so-called ``enhanced'' sentences, the 9th Circuit also wiped out mandatory minimum sentences, a controversial method of imposing prison terms on drug dealers that vastly reduces a judge's discretion. ``The potential reach of this is pretty enormous,'' said Barry Portman, Northern California's federal public defender. The 9th Circuit based its ruling on a sentencing decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, splitting with four other federal appeals courts to consider the issue. In its brief, the Justice Department warns that the ruling already is causing chaos in the courts. Defendants are withdrawing from plea agreements, seeking to dismiss indictments and appealing sentences, according to prosecutors. Note: U.S. attorneys say war compromised. Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) CannabisNews Justice Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #4 posted by lookinside on November 04, 2001 at 13:59:59 PT:
|
| some real judges rendered a real decision on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds... this could destroy our justice system as we know it...! i hope so.... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by dddd on August 24, 2001 at 17:00:45 PT |
| ,,one to watch....watch ,,as they sleazily worm their way around the ruling,,,and stealthily as possible,reverse the decision using the same dubious doublespeak,and copious distortions of Constitutional interpretations that they are already infamous for....I'm convinced that the SC has mastered the art of furnishing legal longhorn excrement, to serve their handlers preferences...They've probably got it all planned and figured out already. dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by E. Johnson on August 24, 2001 at 16:47:27 PT |
| It was a federal prosecutor who killed Peter McWilliams. Sometimes it seems like they are the good guys, riding in to clean up after the Rodney King business and going after Bill Gates. But for what purpose was Peter's life taken? Can we count the junkies saved from overdoses by Peter's death? Can we count the mythical "lost productivity from casual drug use" that we've supposedly regained thanks to Peter's death? I can see the headline now: "McWilliams dead -- drug use plummets all over America" "It was all worth it" sais the federal prosecutor who killed Peter McWilliams, "because the day after Peter died -- all drug addicts in America suddenly stopped being addicted." It's really scary to see that they are actually capable of committing murder to grind this big marijuana ax of theirs. Perhaps we should see the Department of Justice as being just another type of ruthless drug cartel. Ruthless because they'll ignore God's prohibition against murder in the pursuit of their organizational goals. That's how a ruthless drug cartel is supposed to act -- completely unfazed by killing, ready to kill if necessary. That's the DOJ in the McWilliams case, that's exactly how they acted. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Pontifex on August 24, 2001 at 16:10:30 PT:
|
| What a delicious legal development! And you know what happens if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the lower court's decision: it goes to the Supreme Court, whose earlier ruling set the stage for this whole affair. Any guesses how they'd rule? Almost certainly they'd side with the feds, but it will be interesting to see how they twist the constitution, and their own recent precedent, to violate the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury. In its brief, the Justice Department warns that the ruling already is causing chaos in the courts. Defendants are withdrawing from plea agreements, seeking to dismiss indictments and appealing sentences, according to prosecutors. I seem to recall that only about 6% of drug cases go to trial, as opposed to being settled by plea bargains. If the feds actually have to prosecute all the people they arrest, the War on Drugs will fall apart -- or escalate dramatically -- in a jiffy. This is definitely one to watch. Thanks, FoM. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |