|
|
| Drug Trial Ruling To Be Revisited |
|
Posted by FoM on September 15, 2001 at 15:12:54 PT By David Kravets, Associated Press Source: San Jose Mercury News 
At the request of every U.S. attorney in the West, a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed late Friday to revisit a ruling that in August wiped out a major drug-sentencing statute created during the Reagan administration's war against drugs.The court agreed to rehear the three-judge panel's decision with 11 judges. In an unusually expedited manner, the circuit set oral arguments here for Sept. 29. Every federal public defender in the circuit that covers nine western states opposed the rehearing. In August, the judges found that a 1984 drug-sentencing law unconstitutionally allowed a judge, rather than a jury, to increase prison sentences based on the quantity of drugs found. The case involved Calvin Buckland, who received a 27-year sentence for possessing 17 pounds of methamphetamine in Seattle. The circuit panel said that because the jury was never asked to find how much of the drug was seized, the judge could not automatically increase his sentence by seven years based on his own conclusions on the amount of drugs discovered. Prosecutors, in their appeal, said the decision could affect thousands of drug defendants whose sentences were enhanced by a judge without a jury determining how much drugs were discovered. The circuit decision covers federal drug prosecutions in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii. Defense attorneys said the case was in line with a June Supreme Court ruling that found a defendant was entitled to a jury decision, not a judge's, on whether he acted out of racial bias in an alleged hate crime. Note: Decision wiped out law that gave Judges power to increase sentences. Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Related Articles: Reversal Sought on Drug Ruling 9th Circuit Says Judge Can't Add Time To Sentences Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #3 posted by observer on September 16, 2001 at 10:10:45 PT |
| Prosecutors, in their appeal, said the decision could affect thousands of drug defendants whose sentences were enhanced by a judge without a jury determining how much drugs were discovered. Typical police state Nazis. Always seeking to evade the constitution, common law and common decency. (Any barely plausible excuse will do.) In this case, they squeal like stuck piggies to "defend" their "right" to LIE to juries. This is important, because when a hapless victim, a pot smoker, gets accused of a long list of "crimes" (for using marijuana: use, conspiracy to deal*, paraphenalia, child endangerment [no children need be present]: all to evade the bill of rights' provisions against double jeopardy), the prosecutor/judge needs to make it look to the jury that the defendent will only get a tiny amount of jailtime for "possession." Then, when the cowed, selected-to-be-ignorant jury decides, "oh gee, she must have done something: she won't get long in prison for smoking pot!" and ignorantly rubber-stamps the prosecutor, the judgeprosecutor then (double jeopardy) really blasts the victim with both barrels. Judge and prosecutor snuggle and cuddle again: another narco-kingpin brought to justice is the tender pillow-talk. Bigger budgets for the prosecutor/judges' department next year; nice fat raises. Life is good! ____ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by dddd on September 16, 2001 at 01:16:01 PT |
| .....The article states that "judges",are the ones who increased prison sentences without a jury,,,,,,,,now please correct me if I'm wrong,,,,but I dont think that judges are the ones responsible for the enhanced sentences,,,I think that it is the federal laws that require enhanced sentences!....Judges nowdays just stand by and watch as absurd federal laws make it so the judges are little more than an empty observer who wears a robe..... There are bad judges,and good judges,,,but in the federal government, ,,,,there is only bad
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Poisoned1520Days on September 15, 2001 at 17:36:24 PT |
| "Every federal public defender in the circuit that covers nine western states opposed the rehearing." The current decision should stand. That [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |