Judges can now punish an acquitted man if they want...

[Red Ketchup]

Looks like your right to "trial by a jury of your peers" is now meaningless in the US...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1982520.story


Judges can still punish acquitted defendants

In refusing to consider a Wisconsin man's appeal, the Supreme Court says jurists can issue prison sentences even if the jury has cleared a defendant of certain crimes.

By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declined Monday to reconsider a legal rule that might surprise most Americans: Judges can punish defendants for certain crimes even after a jury has acquitted them of those charges.

In recent years, the justices have described the right to jury trial as one of the bedrock principles of American law. At the same time, they have been unwilling to say that a jury's not-guilty verdict on some charges means the defendant cannot be punished. Instead, the court has said judges may take into account "acquitted conduct" when they decide on a prison term.

The case of Mark Hurn of Madison, Wis., provides a stark example of the rule.

Hurn was given an additional 15 years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. He was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, a charge that would warrant between two and three years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

But he was sentenced to nearly 18 years in prison, as though he had been convicted on both counts.

"This was an extraordinary increase," said Elizabeth Perkins, a lawyer in Madison who filed his appeal. "Allowing a sentencing judge to disregard the verdict of the jury is very disappointing."

In 1997, the high court endorsed the acquitted conduct rule in a California case, but the justices did so in a brief, unsigned opinion. They agreed judges can decide on the sentence for a convicted criminal by "relying on the entire range of conduct" presented by prosecutors, not just the charges that resulted in guilty verdicts. In recent years, the rule has allowed judges to give defendants long prison terms even when a jury rejected key parts of the prosecution's case.

In Hurn's case, the U.S. appeals court in Chicago agreed that his prison term was "based almost entirely on acquitted conduct." Nonetheless, the judges upheld his full sentence last year, citing the Supreme Court's earlier rulings.

The case began in 2005 when police in Madison searched Hurn's home and found drugs. They seized 450 grams of crack cocaine, about 50 grams of powder cocaine and $38,000 in cash. Hurn admitted to being a drug dealer, but at his trial he testified the crack belonged to other people who lived in the house.

A jury convicted him of possessing powder cocaine but acquitted him of the crack cocaine charges. Nonetheless, prosecutors said he should be punished for both the crack and powder cocaine offenses, and recommended a sentence of about 20 years in prison.

U.S. District Judge John Shabazz agreed with the prosecutors and said there was good reason to think Hurn was guilty of the crack cocaine charges. He imposed a sentence of nearly 18 years.

Lawyers for Hurn appealed to the Supreme Court last fall, arguing that federal prosecutors should not be permitted to "execute an end run around" the jury. They cited several recent rulings in which the justices described the right to a jury trial as one of the bedrock principles of American law.

But on Monday, the justices turned down the appeal petition in Hurn vs. United States without comment.

"This is very disappointing," said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor who is an expert on sentencing. "They have dodged this for now, but eventually the Supreme Court will have to grapple with this again."

[Tock]

That's one reason why conservative Republicans make terrible presidents. They appoint the dangest judges . . .

This one thinks it's ok to take someone found innocent of charges, and send 'em to prison.

What's up with that?

[Dangercat00]

Is it some kind of technicality or what? That can't actually be legal...at least I hope not.

[Red Ketchup]

The Supreme Court declined Monday to reconsider a legal rule that might surprise most Americans: Judges can punish defendants for certain crimes even after a jury has acquitted them of those charges.

Hate to tell you this, but this means it's as good as legal...

Now the dude getting the bum rap is a piece of crap crackhead and as far as I am concerned deserves every minute of jail he's getting... but this is definetly a major "slippery slope" case.

It's damm scary that a judge can decide to send you to jail anyways even after a jury has acquitted you... that pretty well throws right out the window your basic right to a trial by a jury of your peers... and since thats the foundations of the American legal system...

Red

[soulstealer]

Guilty until the jury's opinion is innocent..... and guilty anyway... WTF thats insane...

[Act of God]

I guess that whole constitution thing is overrated...wtf?

I hate hearin/readin stuff like this

[Tock]

The judge in question was appointed by Conservative Republicans.

Conservative Republicans appoint awful judges . . . if for nothing else, the possibility for the next president to appoint more Supreme Court Judges ought to be sufficient to persuade all of you to vote for a Democrat this next November.

[Act of God]

The judge in question was appointed by Conservative Republicans.

Conservative Republicans appoint awful judges . . . if for nothing else, the possibility for the next president to appoint more Supreme Court Judges ought to be sufficient to persuade all of you to vote for a Democrat this next November.

Like Obama or Hilary would appoint anyone better. Come on now, extremism on EITHER side is bad.

[Carlos_E]

Like Obama or Hilary would appoint anyone better. Come on now, extremism on EITHER side is bad.

But they balance each other out.

[Amorphic]

that is truely frightening i have to say

[BWhitaker]

The idea of acquitted conduct effects the severity of sentencing imposed. If you are charged with two counts, A and B, and the jury finds you not guilty of A but guilty of B, the judge can use the acquitted conduct to impose a more severe sentence for the B charge.

The idea is that judicial descretion, to some degree, is a good thing. It allows the judges to look at the circumstances...some times, we see defendants who are guilty of a crime but it seems unjust even to impose the guidelines minimum. This is essentially the same idea. For a jury to find you guilty of a criminal charge, you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that does not mean that when you were found innocent, that you did not do it. It merely means the state did not fulfill the burden of proof. Therefore, when the judge is at sentencing, he can look to the other actions of the defendant to impose a more severe sentence.

For example, lets say the reason that the jury did not find the person guilty of A is because some of the evidence was not admissable upon a technicality. What if this charge, A, is murder. When the judge goes to punish for B, which the jury found guilty, he can look at the cicumstances (one of them being that the defendant most likely commited murder, and other facts that were shown to indicate murder) and impose a heftier sentence. Essentially, it is just allowing a judge to look at all the circumstances when he is utilizing his discretion.

This is obviously controversial, but I believe it envokes a larger response than necessary. It is NOT allowing a judge to overrule the jury and impose a verdict of guilty.

As far as constitutional issues - Let me say one thing. Conservative judges are usually more likely to follow the original interpretation of the constitution. This may or may not be right or good, but they defintely make the greatest attempt throughout history to follow the constitution. While many liberal judges have made great advances, they are usually charged with too much judicial discretion. I struggle with which one is the correct approach; however, it is definitely not the case that conservative judges can be accused of not following the constitution. It is just that their interpretation limits the judiciaries power greater than most liberal judges views.

As far as this being uncontitutional - I really do not see anywhere in the constitution that disallows judicial discretion (district court judges) in sentencing. Nor does it say anything about the judge considering circumstances of other charges in determining sentence. The closest you could come would be the 6th. However, this only guarantees a right to trial by jury as the finder of facts. This does not explicitly say, nor has it been interpreted to give the jury a right to make legal conclusions, nor sentencing. This are issues of law, which the judge has the power to decide. Not the jury.

[Red Ketchup]

So if I get this right, if a person gets arrested for shoplifting and assaulting the clerk who caught him, and then a jury finds him guilty of shoplifting, but not guilty of the assault, a judge can decide to "overpunish" the person for the shoplifting 'cause he wants to punish him for the assault, even if the jury decided he wasn't guilty of it...

Doesn't seem right to me...

Red

[massmonster32]

Yup exactly RK the police and prosecutor and judge are now in Cohouts to win at all costs no matter how they do it. Sore losers since they are policing for the rich to begin with they just put someone with less money for a high priced lawyer behind bars and made their win loss record look better. Who cares what the jury says they dont count no more just like our vote is heading that way. Pigs suck azz. MM

[lotaquestions]

im not sure but hasnt this always been the case it seems like i have heard of this before?

[BWhitaker]

So if I get this right, if a person gets arrested for shoplifting and assaulting the clerk who caught him, and then a jury finds him guilty of shoplifting, but not guilty of the assault, a judge can decide to "overpunish" the person for the shoplifting 'cause he wants to punish him for the assault, even if the jury decided he wasn't guilty of it...

Doesn't seem right to me...

Red

I agree it does seem a little odd.

I reconcile it with the following: I like the ability of the judge to consider external factors (factors and circumstances outside the commision of the specific crime) to mitigate the sentence. That is, I would wish a judge to punish less severily a stellar student who has shown great contributions to society as well as demonstrable responsibility than an addict who has shown signs of domestic abuse, etc. (provided their commissions of the crime were equal). It allows the judge to consider how severe the punishment should be in order to achieve the goals of punishment (retribution, punishment, deterence, rehab). This "acquitted conduct" rules allows the judge to make these sentence rulings in the other direction. In fact, the relation of the crime he was convicted of, and the conduct used from the acquitted crime are probably more related to the commission of the crime he was found guilty on as they most likely arose out of the same transaction and occurrance (though I cant recall if the same T and O is required in the joinder of claims within the rules of criminal procedure.)

[BWhitaker]

Yup exactly RK the police and prosecutor and judge are now in Cohouts to win at all costs no matter how they do it. Sore losers since they are policing for the rich to begin with they just put someone with less money for a high priced lawyer behind bars and made their win loss record look better. Who cares what the jury says they dont count no more just like our vote is heading that way. Pigs suck azz. MM

How does this make their win lose record any different. They still lose on the other charge. Though it will still be percieved as some sort of quasi win.