The Land Of The Free To Be Thrown In Jail Even If You Aren't Convicted Of A Crime
Radley Balko asks in the WaPo:
Think the government must convict you of a crime before it can punish you for it? Think again.Most Americans probably believe that the government must first convict you of a crime before it can impose a sentence on you for that crime. This is incorrect: When federal prosecutors throw a bunch of charges at someone but the jury convicts on only some of those charges, a federal judge can still sentence the defendant on the charges for which he was acquitted. In fact, the judge can even consider crimes for which the defendant has never been charged.
Balko writes about a jury that found three men guilty of selling small amounts of cocaine but acquitted them on racketeering and other charges (of being part of an extensive drug conspiracy). Hey, but never mind those acquittals!
Balko quotes the National Law Journal, from a piece reported by Tony Mauro:
Yet, when U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts sentenced the three, he said he "saw clear evidence of a drug conspiracy," and sentenced Ball, Thurston and Jones to 18, 16 and 15 years in prison, respectively -- four times higher than the highest sentences given for others who sold similar amounts of cocaine, according to filings with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court just declined to hear this case. On a more positive note, Balko reports that Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg filed "a rare dissent" to the Court's refusal. An excerpt:
We have held that a substantively unreasonable penalty is illegal and must be set aside. ... It unavoidably follows that any fact necessary to prevent a sentence from being substantively unreasonable--thereby exposing the defendant to the longer sentence--is an element that must be either admitted by the defendant or found by the jury. It may not be found by a judge....Not only did no jury convict these defendants of the offense the sentencing judge thought them guilty of, but a jury acquitted them of that offense. Petitioners were convicted of distributing drugs, but acquitted of conspiring to distribute drugs. The sentencing judge found that petitioners had engaged in the conspiracy of which the jury acquitted them.
Don't think that because these chappies are drug dealers that this judicial abuse can't be used against you.
Mitnick was held four years before being brought to trial. And it was Clinton's DOJ doing this.
Boiled down: we're the Federal Government, we can do what we want when we want because fuck you.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 22, 2014 5:48 AM
Wow... this appears to be Law 101. You can't sentence someone to a crime for which they have not been convicted. What's the story here? Isab?
Cousin Dave at October 22, 2014 6:19 AM
@Cousin Dave
As I understand it, the judge is allowed wide latitude within the statutory sentencing guidelines.
Just because it is not normal to give someone an 18 year sentence for possession of a small amount of cocaine, doesn't mean that the law doesn't allow this.
It appears in this case, the judge decided to express his disagreement with the jury on the conspiracy and racketeering charges by almost maxing out the sentences of the defendants on the crimes they were convicted of.
This seems like bad policy to me. Drug crimes are often overcharged and also stacked in order to coerce plea bargaining.
It is almost bad enough to make me want to become a pro bono criminal defense lawyer. Too many people getting railroaded by the justice system, when they cant afford an adequate defense or worse, their court appointed lawyer's interests do not align with the best interests of their client.
Isab at October 22, 2014 7:09 PM
Almost makes you wonder if people will ever get mad enough to just kill the bastards
lujlp at October 22, 2014 10:46 PM
Leave a comment