Interesting column found on JewishWorldReview.com
Robyn Blumner
Supreme Court ruling protects
rights of the accused
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- JUST
SAY "criminal procedure" to most people and, as if
through autonomic function, their eyes start to glaze
over. The field can be duller than spectator golf and
as hard to follow as Newt Gingrich's code of marital
fidelity. But if ever you or someone you care about is
falsely accused of a crime, the Constitutional
protections for criminal defendants becomevery
relevant.
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a
case with such far-reaching implications that it could
force the reconsideration of prison sentences for
tens of thousands of convicted drug dealers.
Why haven't you heard of it? Well, first, the case
came down the same week the court ruled on
explosive issues of partial-birth abortion and gay Boy
Scouts. And, second, the ruling ran 106 pages long
and involved the arcane world of sentencing law.
Lawyers are struggling to understand the case's
consequences; most reporters are understandably
clueless.
The case, Apprendi vs. New Jersey, involves an
incident in the wee hours of the morning, Dec. 22,
1994, when Charles Apprendi Jr. fired several
gunshots into the home of a black family living in his
otherwise all-white neighborhood of Vineland, N.J.
While no one was hurt in the shooting, Apprendi was
indicted on multiple firearms charges. One of the
three counts to which he eventually pleaded guilty -
possessing a firearm for an unlawful purpose -
carried a prison term of up to 10 years.
So far this is pretty straightforward, right? Here's the
snag: New Jersey also has a hate crime statute that
allows the trial judge to enhance the sentence for
certain crimes motivated by racial prejudice.
At the prosecutor's prompting, just before
sentencing, the judge considered whether Apprendi's
actions were intended to intimidate blacks. The judge
concluded they were and gave Apprendi an
enhanced sentence of 12 years in prison.
Why would this additional hate-crime sentence concern the U.S. Supreme
Court? Because the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants notice of the
accusations against them and that a jury, not a judge, determines guilt.
By a vote of 5 to 4, the court said the enhanced penalty violated due
process because Apprendi wasn't initially charged with a hate crime, a
judge ruled him guilty of it and he was given a prison term beyond the
range for the initial firearm violation - meaning he was punished for a
crime he wasn't properly convicted of.
Susan Klein, a professor at the University of Texas Law School and a
former federal prosecutor, said she has identified at least 40 federal
criminal statutes that appear to be unconstitutional under these new
standards. "And there are similar statutes in every state," she said.
Prosecutors should be waking up at night in a cold sweat: Virtually every
conviction under a federal drug statute is now at risk. Federal drug statutes
ask the jury only to determine whether the defendant has possessed,
manufactured or sold illicit drugs. Judges are then given the job to decide
the type and volume of drugs sold and to sentence accordingly.
When a judge considers these extra facts and then punishes the defendant
with (ital) more (end ital) prison time than one would get for trace amounts,
the defendant's constitutional right to have his guilt judged by a jury of his
peers is infringed.
Taking it to an extreme is the best way to illustrate why this violates fair
trial principles. Suppose, says Milton Hirsch, Miami-based criminal defense
attorney, "the state has only one crime: Doing harm to others. Otherwise
everything else is for the judge to decide." The judge determines the actual
offense (larceny, murder, etc.), the intent of the accused in committing the
crime, and then imposes a sentence.
This setup would be unconstitutional, Hirsch says, because it strips the jury
of its job of deciding the nature and quality of the offense and how much to
stigmatize the defendant.
Congress and the state legislatures have barred juries from deciding
important aspects of a defendant's guilt because they want to stack the
deck against the accused. Juries must decide each element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas judges only have to apply a
preponderance of the evidence standard when they are considering factors
relevant to sentencing. Juries also sometimes use their power to nullify the
law by refusing to convict when they think the charges are unjust or too
severe.
The Apprendi ruling has everyone in the criminal justice system
scrambling. Courts are already getting appeals based on the ruling and
expect a future barrage. An emergency committee at the Department of
Justice has been formed to study the case's aftermath, since there are
61,000 people in federal prison on drug-related convictions, all of whom
could potentially challenge their sentence.
These days, prosecutors are rarely the ones to sweat a Supreme Court
decision. Too often, the Rehnquist court has willingly shunted aside
civil-liberties concerns in favor of expedience. It's nice to see our rights
win a big one for a change. And, if there ever comes a time when you
need the Constitution's protections for the accused, you'll be grateful
too.
[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited August 09, 2000).]
Robyn Blumner
Supreme Court ruling protects
rights of the accused
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- JUST
SAY "criminal procedure" to most people and, as if
through autonomic function, their eyes start to glaze
over. The field can be duller than spectator golf and
as hard to follow as Newt Gingrich's code of marital
fidelity. But if ever you or someone you care about is
falsely accused of a crime, the Constitutional
protections for criminal defendants becomevery
relevant.
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a
case with such far-reaching implications that it could
force the reconsideration of prison sentences for
tens of thousands of convicted drug dealers.
Why haven't you heard of it? Well, first, the case
came down the same week the court ruled on
explosive issues of partial-birth abortion and gay Boy
Scouts. And, second, the ruling ran 106 pages long
and involved the arcane world of sentencing law.
Lawyers are struggling to understand the case's
consequences; most reporters are understandably
clueless.
The case, Apprendi vs. New Jersey, involves an
incident in the wee hours of the morning, Dec. 22,
1994, when Charles Apprendi Jr. fired several
gunshots into the home of a black family living in his
otherwise all-white neighborhood of Vineland, N.J.
While no one was hurt in the shooting, Apprendi was
indicted on multiple firearms charges. One of the
three counts to which he eventually pleaded guilty -
possessing a firearm for an unlawful purpose -
carried a prison term of up to 10 years.
So far this is pretty straightforward, right? Here's the
snag: New Jersey also has a hate crime statute that
allows the trial judge to enhance the sentence for
certain crimes motivated by racial prejudice.
At the prosecutor's prompting, just before
sentencing, the judge considered whether Apprendi's
actions were intended to intimidate blacks. The judge
concluded they were and gave Apprendi an
enhanced sentence of 12 years in prison.
Why would this additional hate-crime sentence concern the U.S. Supreme
Court? Because the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants notice of the
accusations against them and that a jury, not a judge, determines guilt.
By a vote of 5 to 4, the court said the enhanced penalty violated due
process because Apprendi wasn't initially charged with a hate crime, a
judge ruled him guilty of it and he was given a prison term beyond the
range for the initial firearm violation - meaning he was punished for a
crime he wasn't properly convicted of.
Susan Klein, a professor at the University of Texas Law School and a
former federal prosecutor, said she has identified at least 40 federal
criminal statutes that appear to be unconstitutional under these new
standards. "And there are similar statutes in every state," she said.
Prosecutors should be waking up at night in a cold sweat: Virtually every
conviction under a federal drug statute is now at risk. Federal drug statutes
ask the jury only to determine whether the defendant has possessed,
manufactured or sold illicit drugs. Judges are then given the job to decide
the type and volume of drugs sold and to sentence accordingly.
When a judge considers these extra facts and then punishes the defendant
with (ital) more (end ital) prison time than one would get for trace amounts,
the defendant's constitutional right to have his guilt judged by a jury of his
peers is infringed.
Taking it to an extreme is the best way to illustrate why this violates fair
trial principles. Suppose, says Milton Hirsch, Miami-based criminal defense
attorney, "the state has only one crime: Doing harm to others. Otherwise
everything else is for the judge to decide." The judge determines the actual
offense (larceny, murder, etc.), the intent of the accused in committing the
crime, and then imposes a sentence.
This setup would be unconstitutional, Hirsch says, because it strips the jury
of its job of deciding the nature and quality of the offense and how much to
stigmatize the defendant.
Congress and the state legislatures have barred juries from deciding
important aspects of a defendant's guilt because they want to stack the
deck against the accused. Juries must decide each element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas judges only have to apply a
preponderance of the evidence standard when they are considering factors
relevant to sentencing. Juries also sometimes use their power to nullify the
law by refusing to convict when they think the charges are unjust or too
severe.
The Apprendi ruling has everyone in the criminal justice system
scrambling. Courts are already getting appeals based on the ruling and
expect a future barrage. An emergency committee at the Department of
Justice has been formed to study the case's aftermath, since there are
61,000 people in federal prison on drug-related convictions, all of whom
could potentially challenge their sentence.
These days, prosecutors are rarely the ones to sweat a Supreme Court
decision. Too often, the Rehnquist court has willingly shunted aside
civil-liberties concerns in favor of expedience. It's nice to see our rights
win a big one for a change. And, if there ever comes a time when you
need the Constitution's protections for the accused, you'll be grateful
too.
[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited August 09, 2000).]