Pubdate: Thu, 13 Jan 2005
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2005 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact:  http://www.csmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/83
Author: Warren Richey, Staff Writer

COURT ORDERS CHANGES IN SENTENCING

In A Divided Ruling, Justices Strike Down Portions Of Federal Guidelines, 
Forcing A Redrawing Of The Sentencing System

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court has set the stage for a historic 
transformation of the criminal justice system in a ruling that requires 
federal judges to find a new way to mete out punishments to convicted 
criminals.

The nation's highest court Wednesday struck down a portion of the federal 
sentencing guidelines system designed to help judges hand down similar 
punishments for similar crimes - a system that has been in operation in 
federal courthouses for 17 years.

At the same time, however, a majority of justices upheld the basic 
structure of the guidelines system. The move may help reduce the level of 
confusion as federal courts attempt to apply the Supreme Court's decision 
to the estimated 80,000 criminal defendants sentenced each year within the 
federal court system.

Much of the federal sentencing system had slowed to a near halt since last 
June when the high court issued a ruling raising serious questions about 
the viability of the sentencing guidelines. Legal analysts say the decision 
has lived up to expectations.

"This is one of the most important decisions involving practical effects in 
the criminal system in United States history," says Marc Miller, a 
sentencing expert at Emory Law School. "It ranks up there with Miranda."

In effect, the high court issued two decisions in one, with each ruling 
reflecting the views of different factions of justices.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the justices said the application of the guidelines 
violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. This group of justices, 
led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the guidelines impermissibly allowed 
judges in some instances to become a jury of one by handing down sentences 
that exceeded the prison term authorized by a jury's verdict at trial.

A second group of justices, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, ruled 5 to 4 
that the guidelines system could be largely salvaged from the 
constitutional problems identified by the other justices by severing the 
portion of the federal sentencing statute that makes the guidelines 
mandatory. By striking the mandatory requirement, the guidelines would 
become merely advisory, thus permitting judges to tailor particular 
sentences in light of other legally authorized concerns.

"We do not doubt that Congress ... intended to create a form of mandatory 
guidelines system. But, given today's constitutional holding, that is not a 
choice that remains open," Justice Breyer writes.

He adds, "Ours, of course, is not the last word: The ball now lies in 
Congress' court. The national legislature is equipped to devise and 
install, long-term, the sentencing system, compatible with the 
Constitution, that Congress judges best for the federal system of justice."

Douglas Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University, says the 
splintered nature of the decision may only sow more confusion. "The need to 
provide clarity for the lower courts took a back seat to the justices' 
strong beliefs about their own view of the case," Professor Berman says.

One practical effect of the ruling is that prosecutors will probably be 
forced to return more detailed indictments and to prove, at trial, facts 
they believe may be relevant at sentencing.

Sentencing guidelines were designed to limit judicial discretion while 
adding a degree of uniformity to punishments. To make sentences more 
predictable and proportionate, and to avoid unintended disparities among 
similarly situated defendants, the guidelines system applied an array of 
relevant factors to help guide judges toward a narrow sentencing range.

In addition to the core criminal charges, judges were required to consider 
many other factors such as criminal history, whether the defendant used a 
firearm, whether any victims were harmed, and whether the defendant 
admitted guilt and helped authorities prosecute others. Each factor was 
assigned a numerical value to be plugged into a chart that would reveal an 
appropriate sentencing range.

Where the system ran into constitutional difficulties is when a judge at a 
sentencing hearing accepted certain factors that increased the defendant's 
sentence beyond the punishment authorized by the jury's verdict.

While a jury verdict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a judge has 
had the power under the sentencing guidelines to significantly boost 
sentences based on factors proved to the judge by a much lower burden of 
proof during a sentencing hearing conducted long after trial.

Prior to the introduction of the federal guidelines in 1987, federal judges 
had wide discretion to use whatever factors they felt were relevant to 
determine an appropriate sentence. Sometimes the wide discretion allowed 
impermissible biases - such as race and ethnicity - to creep into the system.

The guidelines helped make the sentencing process more transparent and made 
it more difficult for personal bias to play a substantial role.

But even as some supporters defended the guidelines for injecting certainty 
and fairness into the sentencing process, others criticized the system for 
tying the hands of judges in certain cases.

The decision stems from the high court's decision last June invalidating a 
portion of Washington State's sentencing guidelines in a case called 
Blakely v. Washington. In this case, the court ruled that sentencing 
guidelines permitting a judge to sentence an individual to a longer term 
than called for by the crime found by the jury violates the Sixth Amendment 
right to a jury trial.

Although the court at the time said it was not extending its ruling to the 
federal guidelines, many experts said that would be the inevitable result.

And many federal judges seem to have agreed. The June decision caused a 
backlog in federal criminal cases, as judges awaited more specific 
instructions from the Supreme Court.

The court took up the issue on an emergency basis. The justices heard oral 
arguments on the first day of its new term on Oct. 4 in two combined cases, 
US v. Booker and US v. Fanfan.

Linda Feldmann contributed to this report.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth