« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Expert: Yes, You Can Be Sentenced On Acquitted Charges
Several readers have asked how it is possible that former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) might go to prison for 32 charges when he was acquitted on 25 of them.
I asked Nora V. Demleiter, who wrote the case book Sentencing Law and Policy and is the managing editor of the Federal Sentencing Reporter, about the legality of the judge's decision to consider all 32 charges. She said that in fact federal judges can consider those charges during sentencing thanks to the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in United States v. Watts. In that case, the Supreme Court held that as long as the government shows that the acquitted charges pass a "preponderance of evidence" standard, they can still be entered as evidence in a sentencing hearing. (This is clearly a lower hurdle to clear than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard necessary for a criminal conviction.)
So even though Siegelman was acquitted on 25 charges, that alleged conduct can still be reviewed for sentencing.
Josh
Zachary
Is it me, or does this open the door to potential prosecutorial abuses?
"Charge him with everything. If the jury finds him guilty of anything, we can still put him away for years!"
On the other hand, applying that rule to certain members of the current administration has some appeal...
June 28, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to Rehnquist's America. Makes you wonder what the Roberts court is capable of.
June 28, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
jury of your peers? fuck that theyre republicans...your going to jail even if your found to be innocent by your peers.
i'm ashamed to be an American.
June 28, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify for folks how this works: You can't be sentenced on charges for which you were acquitted. But if you are convicted, the court may consider all "relevant conduct" -- i.e., related criminal conduct. That extra conduct must be proven to the court by a preponderance of the evidence (less than beyond a reasonable doubt). This conduct may be used in determining the guideline range for sentencing. This is advisory only, though (because the Supreme Court held that you can't require a judge to increase a sentence based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). The judge can basically sentence any way he wants, provided it doesn't exceed a statutory maximum. But even though they're not mandatory, judges still generally sentence per the guidelines.
June 28, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought that this issue is one of the worst and most unsung of the many, many startlingly awful hidden deficiencies of our criminal justice system.
Every time this issue comes up in conversation, people are always like WTF? You can be sentenced for something even if you weren't proven guilty? How does the U.S. Constitution allow for that!?!
It definitely opens the door for massive prosecutorial misconduct, as a good prosecutor can basically convict anyone in America of mail/wire/tax fraud, and then they can come after you for things they could NOT prove and didn't even try.
Shameful.
June 28, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that to many folks this seems crazy, and I don't particularly care to defend it. But here's what the defenders would say: Judges have ALWAYS had the discretion to consider any facts about the defendant that might bear on whether he/she deserves leniency or getting the book thrown at them. All the Federal Guidelines are doing is attempting to channel and confine that discretion in a more predictable way. And the prosecutors do have to prove that conduct, just not beyond a reasonable doubt, only by a preponderance (as in civil cases).
To play law school hypothetical, you're a judge and have Al Capone in front of you for sentencing on his tax evasion charges. Are you really not allowed to consider the fact that he's the head of a murderous racketeering enterprise when you're deciding how much time to give him? Really?
June 28, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There needs to be congressional hearings on this travesty in our so called justice system. Duke Cunningham got 6 years. I'm sick of the book being thrown at dems. and repubs. getting a slap on the wrist...if that much.Equal justice for rich and poor...dems. and repubs. ...black and white.
June 28, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Molly. This whole case seems to be a miscarriage of justice, although what else can we expect under gonzo and rove.
My hubby and I love to travel but have been avoiding the southern states. Our boycott will continue.
June 28, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they'd raise the statutory amount to about 25 years and make it mandatory for criminal offenses by public servants and officials which affect our democracy. These people, both Republican and Democrat, are not just affecting s mall number of people. They are sometimes affecting generations to come, when they are on the take and helping other crooks with their crimes. Giving these clowns any leeway whatsoever has, and is, destroying the best country on earth, and most are receiving penalties less than common criminals who, although doing devastating things, seldom commit crimes which can effect world events and outcomes.
June 28, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder... what are the odds of attaching a post-it to Libby's request for a pardon?
I'm all for crooked politicians getting roasted. To be honest if a person signs up to be a public servant, and is fairly convicted of corruption, then the sentence should be doubled. All I ask is and equal execution of the law ...ahem... and yes Mr. Cheney I've got my crosshairs on your crooked ass.
My question is this: If we are a Republic (which is what we were founded as), and we abandon law, what are we then? This is a serious question that if we don't take a hard look at and soon it may very well be too late...
June 29, 2007 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty until proved innocent. I've got the preponderance right here.
June 29, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty until proven innocent?
Preponderance my foot.
June 29, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink