Supreme Court Declines to Address Sentencing under Relevant Conduct

Posted by

In a particularly disheartening decision, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jones v. United States last week, which would have forced the Court to address whether an individual can be penalized for conduct for which the defendant was acquitted of by a jury under Relevant Conduct, §1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Jones and his co-defendants were found guilty of selling cocaine but acquitted of other drug conspiracy related charges. Despite having been acquitted of those charges, U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts took those charges when imposing their sentence stating that he “saw clear evidence of a drug conspiracy.” The three defendants were sentenced to 15, 16 and 18 years in prison, in some part, for charges that they were acquitted of.

Let that sink in for a moment. Nearly two decades of prison for charges the government could not prove. THAT is the effect of the Relevant Conduct provision in the Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Judges can lock up defendants and throw away the key for conduct that the defendant was never even charged with under Relevant Conduct. If this does not sit well with you, if it sounds completely contrary to the basic legal principles that as a nation we have been taught, things like innocent until proven guilty and your right to a trial by a jury of your peers, that is because it IS and our Supreme Court has again declined to address it.

What is even more troublesome about this case is that the conduct considered at sentencing WAS charged and the defendants were acquitted of the charges by a jury but a Judge was still able to penalize these defendants for those very same actions.

To make matters even more confusing two of the most conservative Justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas aligned themselves with the traditionally more liberal Justice Ginsburg on this issue agreeing that it needs to be addressed and even so certiorari review fell short by one vote. It makes even less sense that the court would not take this case on considering that in the Court has already established that facts increasing a defendant’s penalty must be found by a jury and not by a judge in the Apprendi line of case. One vote could have brought some much-needed attention to this crucial issue affecting our 5th and 6th amendments rights to due process.

Supreme Court Declines to Address Sentencing under Relevant Conduct

Posted by

In a particularly disheartening decision, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jones v. United States last week, which would have forced the Court to address whether an individual can be penalized for conduct for which the defendant was acquitted of by a jury under Relevant Conduct, §1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Jones and his co-defendants were found guilty of selling cocaine but acquitted of other drug conspiracy related charges. Despite having been acquitted of those charges, U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts took those charges when imposing their sentence stating that he “saw clear evidence of a drug conspiracy.” The three defendants were sentenced to 15, 16 and 18 years in prison, in some part, for charges that they were acquitted of.

Let that sink in for a moment. Nearly two decades of prison for charges the government could not prove. THAT is the effect of the Relevant Conduct provision in the Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Judges can lock up defendants and throw away the key for conduct that the defendant was never even charged with under Relevant Conduct. If this does not sit well with you, if it sounds completely contrary to the basic legal principles that as a nation we have been taught, things like innocent until proven guilty and your right to a trial by a jury of your peers, that is because it IS and our Supreme Court has again declined to address it.

What is even more troublesome about this case is that the conduct considered at sentencing WAS charged and the defendants were acquitted of the charges by a jury but a Judge was still able to penalize these defendants for those very same actions.

To make matters even more confusing two of the most conservative Justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas aligned themselves with the traditionally more liberal Justice Ginsburg on this issue agreeing that it needs to be addressed and even so certiorari review fell short by one vote. It makes even less sense that the court would not take this case on considering that in the Court has already established that facts increasing a defendant’s penalty must be found by a jury and not by a judge in the Apprendi line of case. One vote could have brought some much-needed attention to this crucial issue affecting our 5th and 6th amendments rights to due process.

Supreme Court Declines to Address Sentencing under Relevant Conduct

Posted by

In a particularly disheartening decision, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jones v. United States last week, which would have forced the Court to address whether an individual can be penalized for conduct for which the defendant was acquitted of by a jury under Relevant Conduct, §1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Jones and his co-defendants were found guilty of selling cocaine but acquitted of other drug conspiracy related charges. Despite having been acquitted of those charges, U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts took those charges when imposing their sentence stating that he “saw clear evidence of a drug conspiracy.” The three defendants were sentenced to 15, 16 and 18 years in prison, in some part, for charges that they were acquitted of.

Let that sink in for a moment. Nearly two decades of prison for charges the government could not prove. THAT is the effect of the Relevant Conduct provision in the Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Judges can lock up defendants and throw away the key for conduct that the defendant was never even charged with under Relevant Conduct. If this does not sit well with you, if it sounds completely contrary to the basic legal principles that as a nation we have been taught, things like innocent until proven guilty and your right to a trial by a jury of your peers, that is because it IS and our Supreme Court has again declined to address it.

What is even more troublesome about this case is that the conduct considered at sentencing WAS charged and the defendants were acquitted of the charges by a jury but a Judge was still able to penalize these defendants for those very same actions.

To make matters even more confusing two of the most conservative Justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas aligned themselves with the traditionally more liberal Justice Ginsburg on this issue agreeing that it needs to be addressed and even so certiorari review fell short by one vote. It makes even less sense that the court would not take this case on considering that in the Court has already established that facts increasing a defendant’s penalty must be found by a jury and not by a judge in the Apprendi line of case. One vote could have brought some much-needed attention to this crucial issue affecting our 5th and 6th amendments rights to due process.