Pubdate: Thu, 15 Jul 2004
Source: Knoxville News-Sentinel (TN)
Copyright: 2004 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.
Contact:  http://www.knoxnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/226
Author: JAMIE SATTERFIELD

JUDGE TESTS LIMITS OF NEW FEDERAL SENTENCING PLAN

The shackles came off in U.S. District Court in Knoxville on Wednesday, but 
it wasn't a defendant who was set free.

It was the judge.

With the ink still wet on a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that 
said judges are no longer bound by federal sentencing guidelines, Senior 
Federal Judge James H. Jarvis put it into practice.

Travis Jeffries, a 22-year-old crack dealer, faced a minimum of 121 months 
behind bars under those guidelines. Jarvis cut the term in half, ruling 
Jeffries should only serve 60 months in a federal prison.

Until Wednesday, Jarvis would have been hard-pressed to exercise that kind 
of judicial discretion. Prosecutors and defense attorneys differ over 
whether his newfound freedom is a good thing.

The breakthrough comes courtesy of two court rulings.

The first was a June 24 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that sent 
shockwaves throughout the nation's judicial system. In that case, known as 
the Blakely decision, the high court ruled that a jury - not a judge - 
should decide whether someone is guilty of conduct used to pump up punishment.

That decision directly impacted the way criminals in Washington are 
sentenced because the defendant in the case, Ralph H. Blakely Jr., was 
convicted in that state.

But a furor immediately arose over whether that ruling affected the way 
criminals are sentenced in the federal court system and what, if any, 
effect it had on states with sentencing procedures similar to those in 
Washington.

Tennessee is among those states that use a similar sentencing scheme. So 
far, however, the jury is still out on what the decision will mean here.

Federal appellate courts across the nation began wading into the fray 
within days. One said the Blakely decision was much ado about nothing for 
federal courts. Another opined that it was significant. Yet a third 
complained the issue was just too fuzzy and beseeched the Supreme Court to 
directly tackle the question of whether the federal sentencing scheme was 
unconstitutional.

None of those appellate courts, however, had jurisdiction over the federal 
system in Tennessee.

Then, on Wednesday, the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, which rules on cases 
in Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan, weighed in on a case of its own, 
known as the Montgomery decision. In that case, the court said that Blakely 
applies directly to federal courts in the district.

In their opinion, the appellate court wrote that federal sentencing 
guidelines put into place in 1987 were not guidelines at all. Instead, the 
court said, the guidelines in practice were made mandatory. The decision 
was rendered by three of the nine-member panel.

Under the federal sentencing scheme, a defendant's range of possible 
punishments was reduced to a mathematical formula.

Nasty criminal history? Up the sentencing ladder you climbed. The more 
drugs that a prosecutor could convince a judge you sold, the higher your 
penalty range. Were you the leader of your pack? More prison time awaited you.

Youth could slide you down the scale. Snitching on your partners also 
slipped you down a rung or two. Confession, too, was not only good for the 
soul but worth a sentencing break.

In the end, a judge was left with a narrow path of punishment - a minimum 
and a maximum typically separated by a few years. A federal judge could go 
out on a sentencing limb and ignore the guideline range, but the decision 
would invariably be appealed and likely reversed.

The Blakely decision, the appellate court said, changed all that.

"In light of Blakely a district judge should no longer view herself (or 
himself) as operating a mandatory or determinate sentencing system but 
rather should view the guidelines in general as recommendations to be 
considered," the court wrote.

Defense attorneys lauded the decision.

"Federal judges are now free to do what they could do only in rare 
instances (before)," said Knoxville attorney David Eldridge.

Federal Defender Paula Voss, who represented Jeffries and became the first 
defense attorney to use Wednesday's decision, called it a "healthy 
re-evaluation" of the way sentences are meted out.

Defense attorney Tom Dillard said both decisions right a sentencing 
structure that had gone wrong.

"The guidelines should be guidelines," he said. "They shouldn't be set in 
stone."

Prosecutors had a far different view. Although representatives of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office could not be reached for immediate comment, federal 
prosecutors already had been advised by the U.S. Department of Justice to 
start taking steps to stave off any impact from the Blakely decision.

The justice department has staunchly defended the federal guidelines, 
arguing the scheme restored fairness to the system, ensured that punishment 
fit the crime and made good common sense, punishing criminal leaders and 
repeat offenders more harshly.

Both sides agree, however, that the nation's high court should weigh in - 
and soon - on whether it intended to change the face of the federal 
sentencing scheme with its Blakely decision.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart