U.S. federal judges hands untied regarding mandatory minimum "guidelines". (long)
Thu, 15 Jul 2004
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...
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.
Media Awareness Project
Thu, 15 Jul 2004
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...
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.
Media Awareness Project
