We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DOJ SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

In late January, the Department of Justice got the Supreme Court to place a hold on four petitions for certiorari that, if granted, would have the Court decide whether acquitted conduct can be used in sentencing. DOJ pulled this off by promising SCOTUS that the proposed Guidelines amendments were going to fix the problem.

Then, DOJ showed up at the Sentencing Commission to tell it that it lacked the power to make the acquitted conduct change. Last week, the Supreme Court petitioner cried foul.

Acquitted conduct sentencing is a district court’s use of conduct a jury had acquitted a defendant of in setting Guidelines and deciding whether to depart from those Guidelines in sentencing a defendant.

Real-life example: Last week, the 7th Circuit upheld Phillip Robinson’s sentence. Phil was charged with a drug distribution conspiracy and an 18 USC § 924(c) for using a gun during a drug transaction. The jury convicted him of the drug conspiracy but acquitted him on the § 924(c). At sentencing, the district court pumped up Phil’s Guidelines for possessing a gun “in connection with the cocaine conspiracy.” The Circuit said that under the Supreme Court’s 1997 United States v. Watts decision, using the acquitted conduct to enhance Phil’s sentence is fine.

The petitions in front of SCOTUS, led by McClinton v United States, argue that sentencing defendants based on conduct a jury acquitted them of violates the 6th Amendment. The Supremes have relisted McClinton multiple times (“relisting” meaning the justices have considered the petitions at their weekly conference and then deferred a decision to the next conference, a “relist” meaning that the petition have substantial support).

On January 12th, the Sentencing Commission rolled out its draft proposed Guidelines amendments for public comment. One of them would ban the use of acquitted conduct in setting Guidelines levels. If adopted, the change would mean that Phil’s Guidelines would be set based only on the coke conspiracy without reference to the gun.

In response, DOJ told the Supreme Court that “[t]his Court’s intervention” was not “necessary to address” the widespread problem of acquitted-conduct sentencing because “the Sentencing Commission could promulgate guidelines to preclude such reliance.”

A few weeks later, DOJ told the Sentencing Commission that it could not amend the Guidelines to curtail the use of acquitted conduct at federal sentencing. DOJ argued that USSC lacked the power to adopt the amendment. The proposal “would be a significant departure from long-standing sentencing practice” because the Supreme Court “has continued to affirm [in Watts] that there are no limitations on the information concerning a defendant’s background, character, and conduct that courts may consider in determining an appropriate sentence.”

McClinton has fired back that DOJ’s “expansive reading of Watts” in front of the Sentencing Commission “is deeply at odds with the far more limited understanding the government has presented to this Court… And contrary to its assurances to this Court, DOJ now contends that the Sentencing Commission lacks authority to promulgate amendments addressing the practice.”

Reuters said last week that DOJ’s position on this issue “does not square with agency leadership and President Joe Biden’s forceful commitments to addressing racism in the justice system and reducing mass incarceration.”

True, but what is more notable is that DOJ can tell the Supreme Court to deny McClinton review because the USSC is going to fix the acquitted conduct problem while at the same time telling USSC that it is not allowed to fix the problem. The government has prosecuted people for less duplicity than that.

Letter of DOJ to Supreme Court, Case No 21-1557, January 18, 2023)

United States v. Robinson, Case No 22-1472, 2023 USAppLEXIS 5625 (7th Cir, March 9, 2023)

Supplemental Brief of Dayonta McClinton, Case No 21-1557 (Supreme Ct, March 7, 2023)

United States v. Watts, 519 US 148 (1997)

Reuters, U.S. Justice Dept takes a hard line on sentencing reform (March 7, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, DOJ testimony to Sentencing Commission on acquitted conduct sentencing generates notable responses (March 8, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root