March 17, 2005
Booker and crack/powder cocaine sentencing
As detailed in this post, earlier this month Judge Adelman in US v. Smith, No. 02-CR-163 (E.D. Wisc. Mar. 3, 2005), used his new post-Booker authority to address the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. I have recently been hearing reports of a number of other district judges taking similar action, and this afternoon I was informed that EDNY District Judge Charles Sifton today issued a lengthy decision in US v. Simon, 90 CR 216, in which Judge Sifton rules, inter alia, that post-Booker courts do not have to follow the 100:1 crack-powder ratio.
I hope to soon be able to provide more information about exactly what Simon says, though in the meantime I would be grateful for readers to use the comments to report other developments in the arena of crack/powder cocaine sentencing.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michael Ausbrook over at INCourts, I can now post a copy of Judge Sifton's remarkable opinion in US v. Simon, No. CR-90-216 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2005). Though Simon is perhaps most notable for its extended crack sentencing analysis, the opinion also insightfully covers what weight the guidelines are to be given post-Booker and also has a thoughtful and thorough discussion of the purposes of punishment.
Folks interested in crack cocaine issues post-Booker should, in addition to downloading Simon, also check out recent opinions by Judge Ponsor in US v. Thomas, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3972 (D. Mass. Mar. 14, 2005), and by Judge Robinson in US v. Harris, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3958 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2005).
March 17, 2005 at 05:05 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Booker and crack/powder cocaine sentencing:
» Fed. Judge Departs from Guidelines, Says Crack Sentences Too Long from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Cheers for U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell in Orlando, FL. Sentencing Law and Policy reports that in US v. Hamilton, (pdf) No. 6:05-cr-157-Orl-31JGG (M.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2006), the Judge refused to apply the draconian federal crack cocaine gu... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 17, 2006 2:12:10 AM
Just briefly, the crack/powder cocaine debate is also heating up in regard to the poorly drafted statute (21 § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)vs. (iii)) "cocaine, its salts, etc." vs. "cocaine base" and the last summer's DC Cir. case of Brisbane 367 F.3d 910 (D.C. Cir 2004). The circuits are split on what to do. Last week a USDC MASS judge discussed the problem in US v. Thomas, 03-CR-30033MAP, USDC MASS 2005 US Dist. LEXIS 3972.)
I have raised this issue on appeal before the 1st Cir and anticipate argument in June 2005.
Posted by: Tamara Barney | Mar 21, 2005 10:04:53 AM
looking for new gudied lines on crack/dealers
as well as edwards vs united states
Posted by: pam williams-curry | Mar 24, 2005 3:23:45 PM
i have been indicted on 1 count of poss. with intent to dust. 7.16 grams of crack cocaine the d.e.a never cout me saleing any crack i bought it from some one. now i'm going to get 10 years? where's the justice? baby rapers don't get that much time! just because i have a small past record. burgarly and 3 misd. of marq.. i work ever day and take care of my family. i did mess up for tring to sell crack to make afew ex bucks to help my family out i'm sorry u.s.a but i don't derves that long. thant you Mr. Booker
Posted by: lynn campbell | Feb 9, 2006 9:38:06 PM
im a student..i think doing crack or cocaine is the wrong thing to do and it has very harmful affects on teens now a days..many teens are peer pressured into using them but in realy situations you just say "NO"
Posted by: christine | Oct 18, 2006 7:46:18 AM
Posted by: | Oct 14, 2008 9:02:20 AM
Very Interesting! Great Job!
Posted by: הרחקת יונים | Jan 6, 2011 6:52:50 AM