Pinch
Well-Known Member
SUPREME COURT and pot prisoners??
I have been following the U. S. Supreme Court that recently voted 5-4 that Federal Sentencing Guidelines are misapplied. I have copied the latest story below. According to the majority decision, juries, not judges, should be the ones to determine if time should be added to a defendant's sentence.
I had the displeasure of being involved in a federal case for some three mind-bending years. Sentencing guidelines can be manipulated by the Government USDAs and fortunately the judges at the federal level don't often fall for the Government's shenanigans. Guidelines are ugly, they were created by Lawmakers, the legislature, for the federal courts, the judicial.. The guidelines prevented judges from having the authority to sentence defendants based on their own unique circumstances.
[B]If you know people who were sentenced for pot at the federal level have them get in touch with their lawyers. This change should cause thousands of claims from inmates in the federal system seeking new sentencing hearings.[/B]
There were a number of oddities about the Supreme Court's ruling on sentencing guidelinesWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Cliff Sloan
Newsweek
Updated: 5:25 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2005Jan. 19 - Last week, in United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court rocked the criminal-justice world with its decision on federal sentencing guidelines. The results affect the 60,000 federal criminal sentences handed out every year.
The court took the unusual step of issuing two separate majority opinions in a single case–an action that reveals fascinating internal turmoil among the justices. Initially, on the merits, a 5-4 majority led by Justice John Paul Stevens ruled that the use of the federal guidelines is unconstitutional in some cases. The court ruled that it is impermissible if the guidelines require a judge to increase a sentence based on information that has not gone to the jury and that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (or admitted by the defendant)–for example, if the guidelines require a judge to increase a sentence if he finds that there was use of a gun even though the jury never heard evidence of a gun. According to the Stevens-led majority, such an approach circumvents the jury, violating every citizen's rights under the Sixth Amendment. That part of the court's opinion was expected, although opposed by the Department of Justice: the same 5-4 majority had reached a similar conclusion in two recent decisions involving state sentencing systems.
I have been following the U. S. Supreme Court that recently voted 5-4 that Federal Sentencing Guidelines are misapplied. I have copied the latest story below. According to the majority decision, juries, not judges, should be the ones to determine if time should be added to a defendant's sentence.
I had the displeasure of being involved in a federal case for some three mind-bending years. Sentencing guidelines can be manipulated by the Government USDAs and fortunately the judges at the federal level don't often fall for the Government's shenanigans. Guidelines are ugly, they were created by Lawmakers, the legislature, for the federal courts, the judicial.. The guidelines prevented judges from having the authority to sentence defendants based on their own unique circumstances.
[B]If you know people who were sentenced for pot at the federal level have them get in touch with their lawyers. This change should cause thousands of claims from inmates in the federal system seeking new sentencing hearings.[/B]
There were a number of oddities about the Supreme Court's ruling on sentencing guidelinesWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Cliff Sloan
Newsweek
Updated: 5:25 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2005Jan. 19 - Last week, in United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court rocked the criminal-justice world with its decision on federal sentencing guidelines. The results affect the 60,000 federal criminal sentences handed out every year.
The court took the unusual step of issuing two separate majority opinions in a single case–an action that reveals fascinating internal turmoil among the justices. Initially, on the merits, a 5-4 majority led by Justice John Paul Stevens ruled that the use of the federal guidelines is unconstitutional in some cases. The court ruled that it is impermissible if the guidelines require a judge to increase a sentence based on information that has not gone to the jury and that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (or admitted by the defendant)–for example, if the guidelines require a judge to increase a sentence if he finds that there was use of a gun even though the jury never heard evidence of a gun. According to the Stevens-led majority, such an approach circumvents the jury, violating every citizen's rights under the Sixth Amendment. That part of the court's opinion was expected, although opposed by the Department of Justice: the same 5-4 majority had reached a similar conclusion in two recent decisions involving state sentencing systems.
