Supreme Court rejects mandatory sentencing rules

[david m]

Justices say judges can consult guidelines

By NBC News' Pete Williams and news services
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET Jan. 12, 2005


WASHINGTON - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal judges no longer have to abide by controversial 18-year-old mandatory sentencing guidelines, saying that the consideration of factors not presented to jurors violates a defendant"™s right to a fair trial.

The ruling was a blow for the Justice Department, which had defended the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines that now apply to about 64,000 criminal defendants each year. Thousands of cases nationwide have been on hold pending Wednesday's ruling, in which the court was split 5-4 on two different aspects of the case.

The high court ruled that its decision in June, which struck down a similar sentencing system used in Washington state for violating a defendant's constitutional rights, also applies to the federal guidelines.

Guidelines now advisory, not mandatory
Justice Stephen Breyer said in the court's opinion on one aspect of the ruling that the guidelines are no longer mandatory, making them only advisory for the sentencing judge.


If the judge chooses to use the sentencing guidelines to impose a longer sentence, an appeals court could overturn the sentence if it determines the application was unreasonable.

In two drug cases before the Supreme Court a judge imposed greater sentences under the guidelines, based on the judge's determination of a fact that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.


The guidelines, long criticized by criminal justice reform advocates for imposing overly harsh sentences on a mandatory basis, set rules for federal judges in calculating what punishment to give a defendant and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime. They tell judges which factors can lead to a lighter sentence and which ones can result in a longer sentence.

Breyer said Congress could act next.

"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," he wrote.

The Justice Department had appealed to the Supreme Court and defended the federal guidelines, arguing the federal system had been thrown into disarray by the ruling in June.

Justice Department "˜disappointed"™
"We're disappointed in the ruling and we are currently reviewing it. We will have more to say later," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.

The cases before the court involved two cases involving men convicted on drug charges in Wisconsin and Maine.

In siding with the two men, the court opened the door to thousands of claims by other defendants. But Justice John Paul Stevens said that not all of them will get new sentencing hearings. Judges must sort through the claims to determine which defendants have current appeals on the subject, he said.

The divided ruling took longer than expected. Justices had put the issue on a fast track, scheduling special arguments on the first day of their nine-month term in October. Most court watchers expected a ruling before the holidays.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors had been anxiously awaiting the ruling.

"The whole federal criminal law system is operating in a state of suspended animation," said Jeffrey Fisher, a Seattle attorney who argued last year's sentencing case. People have been waiting "for the shoe to drop so we can start grappling with the hard issues in the aftermath."

The cases are United States v. Booker, 04-104, and United States v. Fanfan, 04-105.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[tardfarmer]

So it was constitutional 18 years ago, and it's not constitutional now????


Lordy, how many BILLIONS is this going to cost the taxpayers in retrials.

[david m]

it was a flawed system, imho.

i'm glad to see that judges are no longer restricted by it.

[tardfarmer]

t was a flawed system, imho.

i'm glad to see that judges are no longer restricted by it.

Yes and no. It had advantages and disadvantages. Probably the biggest flaw of the "old" system was the judges with an agenda. A very poignant example is the difference between milwaukee county and waukesha county in wisconsin.

Milwaukee won't prosecute a serial murderer if he/she fits a specific profile, but waukesha county doesn't care if you're the pope -- everyone gets the hammer.

Unless judges get impeached for judicial misconduct and send the word around that agenda will not be tolerated, this "new" system could be extraordinarily one sided.

[kevin1]

I agree with Dave ,
a judge in a case should be able to decide an appropriate sentence without having somebody else second guessing him . My question is why didn't this come about sooner than 18 years ? Somebody back then must have said "Hey ! This isn't right !" , and it took until now to decide that they were right ?

Tard ,
Prohibition was Constitutional for awhile , is it now ?

[tardfarmer]

without having somebody else second guessing him .

They weren't being "second guessed" they were being given mandatory minimums -- second guessing would be dictating whether his guilty verdict was right or not.

[tardfarmer]

Tard ,
Prohibition was Constitutional for awhile , is it now ?

Most everyone knew that one was a turd in the punchbowl. Read some of the history of that complete lunatic Carey Nation -- she was schizo freak who had the ear of some in congress.

[kevin1]

Tard ,
I'm quite familiar with the accounts of Mrs. Nation , sometimes a cog slips . Didn't you feel sorry for her long suffering husband ? On second thought , he must have been a real wuss .

I don't agree with your assessment of second guessing . If I'm making a decision and sombody else says that I have to do a minimum of something to accomplish that they are second guessing my ability to render that decision . Mandatory sentencing guidelines are just pablum fed to voters so that yet another weasel can get elected by acting like he's tough on crime and are primarily designed to circumvent weak and or liberal judges . I'd rather see a weak judge be forced to step down as he should than hog tie every judge for his judicial misdeeds . I feel that if they really wanted to put the "fear of God" in criminals they'd ammend the Constitution to remove the restriction against flogging convicts . I'd be quite content to live with that decision , and it might actually reduce recidivism .

[tardfarmer]

If I'm making a decision and sombody else says that I have to do a minimum of something to accomplish that they are second guessing my ability to render that decision .

No they are circumventing any possible agenda on sentencing that you may have... the next part will answer why I think that way.

Mandatory sentencing guidelines are just pablum fed to voters so that yet another weasel can get elected by acting like he's tough on crime

Mandatory sentencing passed Constitutional muster before.. so it wasn't purely political.

and are primarily designed to circumvent weak and or liberal judges

BINGO !!!!!!!

This falls right in line with my astonishment over Rehnquist chiding politicians to stop using impeachment as a tool for judicial misconduct.

Judges must be held accountable for their actions. If you take away mandtory sentencing (and i'm not saying they're all sane, we could seriously revamp the sentencing) then you must make judicial impeachment easier.

[kevin1]

Tard ,
I'll have to go 50-50 with you on this one since I don't get how mandatory sentencing passes the Constitutional sniff test(violates due process) , but I firmly agree about judge's personal and political agendas . Since objectivity is the highest prerequisite for their job they should probably face review , and in some cases castration when judicial misconduct is charged . BTW , screw Rehnquist ! How about y'all judges taking responsibility for your actions like you ask of us for a change ? Impeachment isn't a concern for judges who do their job as they're supposed to . That fossil needs to retire anyway .