Pubdate: Tue, 26 Mar 2002
Source: South Bend Tribune (IN)
Copyright: 2002 South Bend Tribune
Contact:  http://www.southbendtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/621
Author: Gina Holland, Associated Press Writer

OLD SENTENCES HINGE ON GUN CASE

Court Ruling Could Affect Judges' Power, Prison Term Guidelines

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court waded Monday into a gun case mindful that 
it could affect the prison sentences of thousands of inmates.

Justices are reviewing the seven-year prison sentence given a former pawn 
shop operator to decide if sentencings in federal weapons cases have been 
handled properly. Prosecutors in two dozen states are worried that the 
eventual ruling could strike down their sentencing arrangements.

The issue for the court is whether prosecutors have to convince a jury -- 
not just a judge -- that a defendant's wrongdoing involved guns.

The ruling in the gun case and a related drug case being argued next month 
involve sentences in which judges acted alone to make determinations that 
affect the sentence.

In this case, William Joseph Harris pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling 
marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. During the sales, he was 
wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice while at work.

Because of the weapon, a judge said Harris was also guilty of brandishing a 
gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the Congress-mandated 
sentence of seven years in prison.

Federal public defender William C. Ingram, representing Harris, said the 
court may be faced with overturning multiple sentences. "If the 
Constitution demands it, so be it," he said.

Harris' appeal requires the Supreme Court to revisit its 2000 ruling that 
overturned a New Jersey man's sentence for a hate crime.

In that case, justices said a jury should have decided if Charles Apprendi 
was motivated by bias when he fired shots into the home of a black family. 
Apprendi, who is white, got a longer sentence because a judge ruled it was 
a hate crime.

Defense attorneys contend that the Apprendi ruling applies not just to hate 
crimes but a range of other cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly said Monday he opposed the ruling at the 
time.

"I think Apprendi was not right, but still there it is," Breyer said.

Michael R. Dreeben, arguing for the Justice Department, said if the 
government loses, it will have to revise the way it handles prosecutions. 
In addition, states may have constitutional problems with their sentencing 
guidelines, he said.

The constitutional question in the Harris case turns on a defendant's right 
to trial by a jury. Juries decide beyond a reasonable doubt if there was a 
crime. Judges use a lesser standard of proof.

New Jersey Attorney General David Samson told the court in a filing that 
the Apprendi ruling has been cited in 2,700 federal and state appeals. 
Samson said if the court goes even farther, thousands of inmates will 
"inundate the state and federal court dockets demanding early release."

Samson filed the brief on behalf of 24 states and the Virgin Islands. He 
said every state has some type of mandatory minimum sentencing arrangement.

Besides New Jersey, the states are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, 
Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Stanford law professor George Fisher said if Harris wins, it "would be an 
enormous windfall to many defendants."

"The court has itself in a box. It's very difficult to predict how they'll 
get out of it," George Washington University law professor Stephen A. 
Saltzburg said.

The cases are Harris v. United States, 00-10666 and United States v. 
Cotton, 01-687.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager