Supreme Court revisits how much leeway judges can have in sentencing

The two cases being heard Tuesday had been decided by appeals courts that award a presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed within the guideline range.

One involves Victor Rita, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf wars, who was convicted in North Carolina of making two false statements to federal agents about a parts kit he had purchased for a vintage battle rifle. Mr. Rita had no prior criminal history and there were no aggravating characteristics related to his background. But a pre-sentence report prepared under the federal sentencing guidelines classified Rita as an "accessory after the fact" to alleged import violations by the company that sold him the parts kit.

That classification – never presented to the jury at his trial – doubled his potential prison term from 15 to 33 months.

The judge sentenced Rita to 33 months in prison in accord with the guidelines. The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sentence as presumptively reasonable since it was within the guidelines.

Rita's lawyers say the courts placed too much weight on the guidelines and never explained why other factors pointing to a lesser sentence were rejected.

The other case involves an example of a judge imposing a sentence that is less than half as long as the guidelines suggest.

Mario Claiborne pleaded guilty to distribution and possession of crack cocaine. He had evidence of a stable home life, no prior criminal history, and no one was threatened or injured during the crime. But the bag of crack cocaine weighed 5.03 grams. The extra 0.03 grams significantly increased his potential prison term.

Nonetheless, Mr. Claiborne's sentencing judge rejected the suggested guidelines sentence of 37 months and instead imposed a 15-month prison term.

Federal prosecutors appealed, and the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the sentence. The appeals court said that a guidelines sentence is "presumed reasonable" and that a sentencing judge who rejects the guidelines sentence must offer a compelling justification to warrant the difference between the higher and lower sentence.

The Bush administration is urging the court to declare that guidelines are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

"The guidelines are written and revised by an expert agency, with an intent to integrate [all other sentencing] factors and with input from Congress and sentencing judges across the country," writes US Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief.

Lawyers for Claiborne and Rita say the sentencing judge should consider all the relevant sentencing factors and hand down a fair and just sentence. If the guidelines are truly advisory, a judge's sentence should be upheld, they say, even when it deviates from the guidelines.

The ruling is not likely to change dramatically the leniency or severity of most sentences, analysts say, but if the court rejects the presumption-of-reasonableness approach, it will probably trigger a somewhat greater variation of sentences.

Page: 1 | 2