In The News
January 26, 2009: US Supreme Court Rules Trial Courts Can't Presume Guidelines are Reasonable.
In a strongly worded opinion from the United States Supreme Court, published on January 26, 2009, the Court made it clear that even when a sentence falls within the range of months suggested by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, trial courts may not presume that range to be a fair sentence for a particular defendant. The opinion states: "The guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts, they are also not presumed reasonable". This opens the door for sentencing courts to more easily apply a sentence outside of the Guidelines range and requires them to individually consider the facts of each case. Hopefully, this opinion will encourage an end to one-size-fits-all sentencing.
This means that federal trial courts should not robotically apply the Guideline ranges. They must consider the facts of each individual's case and any mitigating factors that might make the Guidelines range too harsh. Courts following this case will first complete the guidelines calculations, then make a determination if the suggested range of months is an appropriate sentence for each individual defendant. Of course this may leave an opportunity for a sentencing court to consider going above the guideline range too.
The short, four page case, is Lawrence W. Nelson AKA "Zikee" v. U.S., 599 U.S. ______ (2009). The previous citation is linked to a copy of the opinion. If you have any questions about your federal sentence, please do not hesitate to call the Klotz Law Firm.
Click here to see the published opinion.
Courts beginning to see need for balance in crack cocaine sentencing.
NACDL Press Release. Washington, DC (February 26, 2008) Representatives of a coalition of citizens, community activists and criminal justice organizations are in Washington to participate in Crack the Disparity Lobby Day, which is being held in conjunction with the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Securitys cocaine sentencing hearing today. The Hearing on Cracked Justice Addressing the Unfairness of Cocaine Sentencing is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. in Rayburn Building Room 2237. In conjunction with that hearing, members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) from around the country are flying in to lobby their representatives and senators in favor of pending legislation which would reduce federal penalties for possession of cocaine base (crack) and bring them more into line with the penalties for powder cocaine. NACDL is the nations only bar association devoted exclusively to criminal defense, the fair administration of justice and due process in state and federal courts.
The current penalty scheme is unjust, and legislative correction of the sentencing disparities is long overdue, said NACDL President Carmen Hernandez. The present ratio treats possession of even a very small quantity of crack approximately 100 times more severely than the powder form of the drug.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the fact that 83 percent of inmates serving time in the federal system for crack cocaine are minorities, and their sentences are more than 50 percent longer than inmates serving time for cocaine powder, Hernandez said. This is true even though crack defendants tend to be low-level street dealers. In fact, the average sentence for possession of crack cocaine is far longer than the average sentences for violent crimes such as robbery and sexual abuse.
