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