« Part 1 of "Drugs on the Docket" podcasts on fake stash-house stings now available | Main | Could Donald Trump, as felon dispossessed of guns, (further) impact Second Amendment jurisprudence? »
June 1, 2024
"Congress Must Abolish Acquitted Conduct Sentencing"
The title of this post is the title of this new Law 360 commentary authored by Marc Levin and Martín Sabelli. I recommend the ful piece, and here are snippets:
As shocking as this might be, federal law allows judges to impose a sentence based on acquitted conduct if the jury has convicted on at least one count.
Why? Because juries decide guilt or innocence using a reasonable doubt standard, and judges impose sentences based on a "more likely than not" standard.... Does this scenario seem even remotely close to what the framers intended by trial by jury, or what most of us believe is fair?
Allowing judges to impose severe sentences where juries have acquitted defendants undermines the fundamental principles of trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, due process, double jeopardy and reasonable doubt — the heart of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Shifting this power from juries to judges also opens the door for individual biases, because the inherent diversity of a jury operates as a check on individual biases.
Unsurprisingly, this practice has been criticized by advocates across the political spectrum. While federal courts have allowed the practice, as our prisons have overflowed, some state courts have held the practice unconstitutional. Also, a host of prominent jurists, including Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas, have criticized the practice.
Can we fix this problem and restore trial by jury as intended by the framers? On April 17, the U.S. Sentencing Commission — a body charged with revising sentencing rules — imposed some limits on the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing. While these changes are a welcome improvement, they still leave the door open to considering acquitted conduct in sentencing in many circumstances.
We need to go further. Congress should give life to the individual rights embedded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by eliminating the practice altogether.
In a positive step, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans introduced a bill to end this practice last year. The bipartisan bill, called the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act, would prohibit federal judges from considering conduct for which an individual was acquitted, unless consideration of the conduct would reduce the sentence. An identical bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the last Congress by a vote of 405 to 12. The bill recently passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. The Senate should now pass this bipartisan bill....
Jury trials — and respect for jury verdicts — protect each of us, our families and our communities. Unjust technicalities like sentencing for acquitted conduct undermine the role of juries and our bedrock founding principle that people should not be punished until proven guilty.
June 1, 2024 at 02:27 PM | Permalink
Comments
Non-attorney lay people overwhelmingly believe that if the jury acquits a defendant of conduct, then that should be the end of it for all criminal purposes. Lay people are offended by the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, if the Judge can find it by a preponderance of the evidence. They just don't think that's the way the American system of criminal justice should work. To them, it defies common sense and fundamental fairness. Notably, only about 3% of Federal criminal cases go to trial in any event. 97% of Federal criminal cases end in a guilty plea, where this issue will not arise.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jun 2, 2024 2:38:32 PM
I wonder if that changes if the same people are informed that despite the verdict reading "not guilty", it really means "the charge was not proven beyond reasonable doubt". There is a vast gulf between the two.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jun 2, 2024 9:34:02 PM
How odd that this issue gets discussed again and again without any citation to US v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), or the reasoning in Watts, which decided this question. Watts had a vote of 7-2.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 3, 2024 8:54:26 AM