A few years ago the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory. Today, in a pair of unrelated cases, the court held that the more lenient sentences handed down were valid and should have been upheld by the appellate courts even though they did not comply with the guidelines.
In a 7–2 decision the Justices denied the Justice Department’s appeal of a 15-year minimum sentence handed down from a plea agreement in Norfolk, Virginia. The District Court Judge sentenced a crack cocaine dealer to the 10-year prison term, departing from the 19-22 year term required by the guidelines and the 15 years minimum sentence according to the guidelines. The judge noted the different standards applied to crack cocaine and powder cocaine and rejected the double standard. The appellate court in Richmond, Virginia disagreed with the district court and overturned the sentence.
Writing for the High Court Justice Ginsburg noted the double standard surrounding the sentencing of crack vs. powder cocaine and rejected it out right. The heavy sentencing of crack cocaine has been devastating upon the African American community in this nation. African Americans are serving 88% of federal sentences for crack cocaine. Only 4% of those in prison for crack are identified as Caucasian. Judge Ginsburg’s opinion seems to be based on federal judges imposing sentences that are sufficient, but not greater then necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals enacted by Congress.
The second case decided today, involved an Iowa man that sold ecstasy when at college. Four years after engaging in the sale of ecstasy the man was contacted by the FBI and helped them with their investigation. Instead of imposing the 3-year prison term called for in the Federal Guidelines the District Court Judge sentenced the defendant to3 years of probation. The Judge noted that the defendant did not engage in narcotics trafficking since ecstasy were limited sales and had ended ceased prior to his graduation from college. At the time of the plea agreement the defendant operated a successful construction business. Basically, the court based its decision for probation on the evidence provided by the skilled criminal defense attorney at a sentencing hearing. The appellate Court in St. Louis, Missouri overturned the sentence and the defendant appealed.
Justice Stevens wrote the 7–2 opinion of the court and noted that the defendant had turned his life around and had been properly sentenced on the case. “An appellate court may take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of deviation from the guidelines, but it may not require extraordinary circumstances or employ a rigid mathematical formula,” Stevens wrote.
When these two cases are read together the importance of a good criminal defense attorney cannot be overlooked. An attorney who is not willing to accept the status quo and who will demand justice for his client can require the Federal Justice system to regain its humane and merciful soul.