THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, January 7, 1997 TAG: 9701070246
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A4 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 67 lines
Juries often convict defendants of some charges and acquit them of others. When that happens, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, sentencing judges can impose longer prison terms based on the conduct for which the defendants were found not guilty.
The court voted 7-2 in cases from California and Hawaii to reinstate the stiffened sentences of two convicted drug dealers.
Neither federal law nor the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy bars judges from considering conduct of which defendants were acquitted, the court said.
Although both cases involved federal prosecutions, the court's discussion of constitutional law would apply to state prosecutions as well.
The justices first noted that an acquittal ``does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.''
``We therefore hold that a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.''
Sentencing courts generally are free to take into account conduct other than that for which defendants were prosecuted - what lawyers call ``uncharged conduct.''
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that sentencing judges ``cannot reconsider facts that the jury necessarily rejected by its acquittal of the defendant on another count.''
The justices reversed the appeals court's ruling.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the decision brings about a ``perverse result.'' He said: ``The notion that a charge that cannot be sustained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt may give rise to the same punishment as if it had been so proved is repugnant.''
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also dissented, saying the court should have allowed lawyers to submit more briefs and argue in person before issuing a decision.
In the California case, Vernon Watts was convicted in Sacramento of possessing cocaine base with the intent of distributing it. He was acquitted of charges that he used or carried a gun during a drug-trafficking offense.
When sentencing Watts to 21 years and 10 months in prison, a federal judge took the gun possession into consideration - resulting in a longer prison term.
In the Hawaii case, Cheryl Putra was convicted in Honolulu of aiding and abetting in the possession of 1 ounce of cocaine with intent to distribute it. She was acquitted of conspiracy and of aiding and abetting the possession of 5 ounces of cocaine with intent to distribute it.
A federal judge sentenced her to two years and three months after factoring in the charges on which she had been cleared. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
IN OTHER ACTION
Rejected the GOP'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 claims against it by women who used its
silicone breast implants. The justices let stand a ruling that
allowed Dow Corning to transfer such suits to a bankruptcy court.
Refused to let New York require some inmates to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous programs that ask them to believe in a higher power.
KEYWORDS: U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING