Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 Source: Daily Press (Newport News,VA) Copyright: 2005 The Daily Press Contact: http://www.dailypress.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/585 Author: Monique Angle Note: The 124 page ruling is on line as a .pdf document at http://www.november.org/Blakely/BookerDecision.pdf Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/federal+sentences OFFICIALS PONDER SENTENCE CHANGES The Supreme Court's decision delays federal cases, as lawyers ask for time to examine the 200-plus page document. A defendant in one state gets a sentence twice as high as a defendant in another state. A white-collar criminal or a drug offender might not get much time at all. Those are the worst-case scenarios imagined by Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney for the state's Eastern District. Twenty-four hours after the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the way judges decide federal sentences is unconstitutional, McNulty and staffers at the federal office were contemplating the fate of future cases. Right now, the impact of Wednesday's decision on the justice system is a guessing game. While the details are sorted out across the country by legal experts, prosecutors and public defenders, cases locally are being postponed - at least temporarily, McNulty said. The ruling has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but gives federal judges a decision-making power they've largely lacked since the early 1980s. "It can mean quite a bit" for a defendant, said William W. Van Alstyne, a constitutional law expert and law school professor at the College of William and Mary. "Or it can mean nothing at all." Twenty years ago, Congress created federal guidelines for sentencing convicted criminals that heightened the penalties under certain circumstances. For example, when judges sentenced a person convicted in federal court, they were required to take into account such factors as the amount of money taken during a robbery or the amount of drugs confiscated in a trafficking case. The guidelines were also meant to ensure that similar sentences were handed out for crimes that had similar circumstances. Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided that because those circumstances are not considered by a jury during a trial, the guidelines are unconstitutional. They also said, however, that if judges wanted to use the guidelines to make a sentencing decision, they still could. Removing the guidelines allows judges to look at the case and decide a defendant's punishment without being bound to the rules set by Congress. "We will hope that the judges continue to sentence in the guideline range," McNulty said. At the Public Defender's office in Norfolk, attorney Larry Dash said meetings at the office next week will deal with how the ruling will impact cases on appeal. In Hampton, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Murphy is wondering if the Supreme Court's decision will impact the case of Donovan Bradley, who pleaded guilty last month to possessing cocaine with the intent of distributing it in Hampton. Bradley, 32, pleaded guilty in December. Murphy wonders if Bradley's sentence, to be determined in March, will be lower or higher based on the ruling. While the ruling won't impact whether a person is found guilty or innocent, it could mean convicted defendants could go back to the courts to lighten their sentences. "Every sentenced defendant will want a review," Murphy said. "It could be litigated until the cows come home." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake