Several sentencing reasons Casey Anthony should be thankful she is not in federal court

Ever the sentencing nerd, my chief reaction to today's surprise verdict in the high-profile Casey Anthony murder prosecution (basics here and here) was that Anthony should be very thankful (while I am a bit grumpy) that her sentencing is forthcoming in state court rather than federal court.  Savvy and regular readers know that this reaction is due largely to the serious sentencing terms available for the federal offense of obstruction of justice and the ugly reality that the federal guidelines require consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. Let me briefly explain.

To begin, Casey Anthony should be pleased she will learn her state sentencing fate later this week, rather than having the process play out over many months as is the federal sentencing norm.  (This reality essentially eliminated any defense need to seek Anthony's release pending sentencing.)  Though there are often benefits from an extended sentencing process in many cases, sentencing speed seems to help Anthony because this case carries so much emotion and because the jury verdict is already  so widely questioned.

More substantively, Anthony faces sentencing on only four Florida misdemeanor counts based on her lies to police during the investigation of her daughter's disappearance.  In the federal system, such lies might have been charged as a felony count of obstruction of justice, and then each conviction would carry a five-year maximum prison term.  In Florida state court, Anthony is looking at a maximum prison term of four years (a one-year max on all four misdemeanor counts of conviction); were this matter in federal court, she could have been facing up to 20 years total imprisonment based on four lies to authorities.

Most critically, the federal sentencing guidelines would instruct a judge to sentence Anthony based essentially on the crime he believes, based on a preponderance of evidence, she covered up even after a jury has acquitted her of that crime.  In other words, it is not only possible, but surprisingly common, for a federal judge to sentence a defendant for a murder that the defendant has been acquitted of!

Regular readers are no doubt tired of hearing my complaints about the use of acquitted conduct to increase sentences dramatically in the federal courts (some of which are linked below). But my sense is that very few persons other than federal criminal practitioners realize that federal law not merely allows, but often urges, sentences enhanced on the basis of acquitted conduct. This is why I am a bit grumpy that Anthony is not to be sentenced in federal court: if she were, the practice of acquitted conduct sentencing would be in full display in the highest-profile criminal case in many years.

Related posts on uncharged or acquitted murder sentencing enhancements as well as other examples of acquitted conduct sentencing in the federal sentencing system:

• "When Acquitted Doesn't Mean Acquitted"
• Latest chapter in notable federal acquitted conduct case from DC
• Extended examination of ugliness of acquitted conduct enhancement
• Practitioner’s Note: Acquitted Conduct in the News (Again)
• Strong commentary on acquitted conduct sentencing
• DC Circuit affirms (but questions fairness of) acquitted conduct enhancement
• Sentenced for an uncharged murder
• Sentenced for three uncharged murders
• Seventh Circuit upholds upward departure based on uncharged (and unproven?) crimes
• Seventh Circuit affirms 10-year sentence increase for uncharged murder
• Eighth Circuit affirms another lengthy sentence for an uncharged murder
• Eleventh Circuit approves sentences based on hearsay evidence of uncharged murders