|
|
| Supreme Court Returns to Mandatory Sentencing |
|
Posted by FoM on March 25, 2002 at 22:56:51 PT By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer Source: Washington Post 
A wary Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a case that could cast a long shadow of doubt over mandatory minimum sentences handed out to thousands of state and federal defendants across the country.An attorney for North Carolina pawnshop owner William Joseph Harris told the court that his client's seven-year sentence for selling drugs should be thrown out because a judge, employing a lower standard of proof than a jury would have, found that Harris had "brandished" a gun during the drug deal. Though identified in federal anti-drug trafficking law as a factor that may result in a higher minimum sentence, brandishing a firearm is "an element that has to be proven" beyond a reasonable doubt, federal public defender William C. Ingram said. Ingram's argument was met with skepticism from several justices who appeared concerned that the case – Harris v. United States, No. 00-10666 – is a follow-on to the court's decision two years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey. In that case, the court, by a 5 to 4 vote, struck down a judge's decision to increase a New Jersey man's sentence beyond the maximum that would otherwise have been allowable, based on the judge's finding that the crime was racially motivated. In Apprendi, the court held that the Constitution required a jury, not a judge, to find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that bumps up a maximum sentence. Apprendi sent a shock wave through the criminal justice system. It spawned appeals and reversals of large numbers of sentences – and the justices are still struggling to define the ruling's ultimate meaning. Apprendi's implications will be debated in two more cases next month: U.S. v. Cotton, No. 01-687, concerns Baltimore drug gang members' claim that their sentences should be overturned because the precise amount of drugs they sold was not specified in the indictment or determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. And Ring v. Arizona, No. 01-488, poses the question of whether states may permit judges rather than juries to impose the death penalty instead of life imprisonment. But if Apprendi was concerned with the ceiling beyond which maximum penalties may not rise, the issue yesterday was the floor beneath which a punishment may not drop. Justices who had opposed the original Apprendi decision suggested that Harris's claim demonstrates that Apprendi placed the court at the top of a slippery slope. Ingram repeatedly tried to assure the court that a victory for his client would create only modest changes in the law. But Justice David H. Souter, who voted in the Apprendi majority, told him at one point that "I don't see your argument as being sort of a slam dunk." Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, arguing for the United States, said that Apprendi has triggered "judicial chaos," and that its extension could create "practical problems" for states – which have made heavy use of mandatory minimum sentences in reliance on a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that upheld them. Mandatory minimums were adopted in response to public anger at lenient sentences meted out by judges under previous law. However, mandatory minimums have themselves sparked debate, as many people have been locked up for long periods for relatively minor offenses such as possession or sale of a small quantity of drugs. In a friend-of-the-court brief in yesterday's case, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, representing 24,000 current inmates or family members of inmates, urged the court to overrule its 1986 holding in the light of Apprendi. Mandatory minimums "are expensive and inefficient, perpetuate unwarranted and unjust sentencing disparities, and transfer the sentencing function unwisely from the judiciary to the prosecution," the organization's brief said. But a brief submitted by 25 state governments, including Maryland's, noted that "countless state prisoners will be subject to early release" if the court overrules its past approval of mandatory minimums. Related Articles & Web Site: Drug Czar Hears Call for Law Change Judge Quits Case Over Federal Sentencing Guideline Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on March 26, 2002 at 05:11:41 PT |
| Should students who participate in extracurricular activities be subject to random drug testing?
http://www.timesdaily.com/ Do you support the widespread use of drug testing for all students? http://www.jacksonsun.com/ Should the U.S. government legalize marijuana for medical use? http://www.greene.xtn.net/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |