Federal judges are restricted from increasing a defendant's sentence based on conduct that a jury has acquitted, a practice that has drawn criticism from a wide range of civil liberties groups, lawmakers and legal scholars.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan commission that creates federal judicial guidelines, on Wednesday voted to adopt an amendment that would prohibit judges from handing down acquittals when calculating sentencing ranges for defendants under the guidelines. It was passed unanimously. The only exception is if the act „confirms, in whole or in part, an immediate conviction.“
„Not guilty means innocent,“ said U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves, chairman of the sentencing commission. Said In a press release. „By enshrining this fundamental fact in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Commission is taking an important step toward protecting the credibility of our courts and the criminal justice system.“
It sounds contrary to what everyone is taught about the American judicial system, but at the sentencing stage of a trial, a federal judge may decide that if the judge believes there is a high probability of acquittal, i.e. Sentences could be increased for the actions of defendants who were acquitted under a lower standard. Evidence showing „beyond a reasonable doubt“ that the defendant committed those crimes. This increased the defendant's score under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and resulted in a significantly longer prison sentence.
for example, reasonbilly binion report In the case of Dayonta McClinton, who was charged with robbing a CVS pharmacy in Indiana at gunpoint and killing one of her accomplices during an argument after the robbery. A jury found McClinton guilty of robbing the pharmacy, but acquitted him of murdering his accomplice. Nevertheless, a federal judge used the co-defendant's death to increase McClinton's recommended sentence under the guidelines from 57 to 71 months to 228 months.
Mr. McClinton filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the use of the act of exculpation in his sentencing, but several Supreme Court justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas, have previously challenged the use of the act. Despite expressing doubts about its constitutionality, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Last June.Reuters report Four of the judges said they would refer the matter to a sentencing committee.
The Department of Justice opposed previous suggestion The Sentencing Commission limits the use of the act of acquittal.
„Reducing a court's discretion to consider conduct related to an acquitted count would be a significant departure from long-standing sentencing practice, Supreme Court precedent, and guidelines principles.“ said Jessica Abbar, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District. testified before the committee last February.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new policy.
The practice also outraged members of Congress. In the past few years, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Law introduced So far, none of the bills that would prohibit the use of acquittals in federal court decisions has passed.
In a statement today, Mr. Durbin said that he and Mr. Grassley continue to push for the passage of the Innocent Act Punishment Act, saying, „This unjust conduct must be prohibited by federal law.“
„Under our Constitution, a defendant can only be convicted if a jury of his peers finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,“ Durbin said. „However, federal law inexplicably allows judges to overturn a jury's 'not guilty' verdict by sentencing a defendant based on the act for which he was acquitted. This practice is protected by the Constitution. It is inconsistent with due process and the right to a jury trial, which is why I applaud this decision.''It is an important step by the Sentencing Commission to limit the use of acquittal. ”