ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, January 7, 1997 TAG: 9701070102
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: The Washington Post
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that when sentencing a criminal, a judge may consider conduct for which the defendant has been acquitted.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices spurned arguments that if a person received a stiffer sentence based on conduct for which he or she had been acquitted it would violate the Constitution and all appearance of justice.
Without hearing oral arguments, the justices reversed a lower court's prohibition on sentencing judges' taking into account conduct on which a jury has returned a not-guilty verdict.
The high court said alleged wrongdoing can be used against a defendant during sentencing as long as prosecutors prove it by a ``preponderance'' of the evidence - an easier standard than the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' proof needed for a criminal conviction. In its unsigned opinion, the court said a jury acquittal ``does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.''
``In my judgment, neither our prior cases nor the text of the [sentencing] statute warrants this perverse result,'' said Justice John Paul Stevens in a dissenting opinion and referring to a drug dealer who got six months longer than the statutory maximum for her crime because the judge considered acquitted conduct.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also dissented.
In the majority were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Monday's case arose under federal sentencing rules that revolutionized how defendants' prison time is calculated. The sentencing rules, which began taking effect in 1987, replaced judges' unfettered discretion with a standardized system that determines punishment based on numerical values attached to offenses and criminal history. The rules allow a defendant's sentence to be increased based on conduct relevant to the crime, and the question Monday was whether even acquitted conduct can be used in the calculation.
The high court said judges should be able to broadly consider the circumstances of an individual's wrongdoing. Rejecting arguments that the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy bars use of acquitted conduct, the court said, ``sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction.''
In other action Monday, the Supreme Court:
*Rejected the Republican Party's free-speech challenge to federal rules requiring political committees to encourage greater disclosure by campaign contributors.
*Turned away a key procedural dispute in Dow Corning Corp.'s efforts to deal with the tens of thousands of health claims by women who used its silicone breast implants. The justices let stand a ruling that allowed Dow Corning to transfer breast-implant lawsuits from around the nation to a federal bankruptcy court in Michigan.
*Refused to let New York require some prison inmates seeking extra privileges to attend Alcoholics Anonymous programs that ask them to believe in some higher power such as God.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
LENGTH: Medium: 65 linesby CNB