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

SCOTUS DENIAL OF ACQUITTED CONDUCT SENTENCING REVIEW MAKES LITTLE SENSE

As everyone knows, on June 30 the Supreme Court finally denied review to a thundering herd of petitions (13 in all) raising the constitutionality of acquitted conduct sentencing. And in so doing, the Court suggests that it’s way behind the times.

Acquitted conduct sentencing is the practice of using a charge of which a defendant was acquitted by a jury to enhance a sentence. The lead petitioner, Dayonta McClinton, was convicted of robbing pharmacies but acquitted of killing one of his fellow robbers in an argument over sharing proceeds. Nevertheless, the judge more than tripled his sentence from a range of 57-71 months to a sentence of 228 months because the murder was “related conduct,” despite the fact a jury said the petitioner was not guilty of killing his co-conspirator.

A careful reading of the statements issued by some Justice on the denial adds equivocation to five months of evasion.

When the Supreme Court denied review, Justice Sotomayor dissented and several other Justices issued statements. Last week, in his Sentencing Policy and the Law blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote at length about the denial of review. “It is quite obvious that objections to the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing raise constitutional issues,” he said. The certiorari petition filed by Dayonta McClinton makes this clear in its Question Presented: “Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on conduct for which a jury has acquitted the defendant…’ These rights are, as the Court put it in Apprendi, “constitutional protections of surpassing importance” because they define restraints on state powers and processes to impose criminal punishments.”

The statements of Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett suggested these Justices voted against granting certiorari because the Sentencing Commission was considering new guidelines for acquitted-conduct sentencing. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that it is “appropriate for this Court to wait for the Sentencing Commission’s determination before the Court decides whether to grant certiorari in a case involving the use of acquitted conduct.” But as Berman observes, Kavanaugh

does not explain why it is ‘appropriate’ to leave unresolved a constitutional issue while a federal agency might address a policy issue… The Justices’ statements referencing the USSC do not account in any way for how any ‘Sentencing Commission determination’ would have any impact on the Court’s consideration of ‘constitutional protections of surpassing importance.’

Policy is policy, but constitutionality is fundamental. As Berman notes, whether acquitted conduct sentencing is constitutional has nothing to do with whether the USSC thinks that it makes policy sense to permit acquitted conduct sentencing. Obviously, the USSC once thought so (given that USSG § 1B1.3 relevant conduct sentencing has been a fixture of federal sentencing since 1988). As Berman put it, “How the USSC (or Congress) might choose to regulate sentencing law and process would not and could not resolve the array of constitutional concerns that the Supreme Court was asked to consider in McClinton. Indeed, the USSC and Congress cannot even know the full reach and limits of their powers to set forth rules concerning acquitted-conduct sentencing with constitutional matters unresolved.”

Besides, the USSC and Congress can only speak to acquitted conduct sentencing at federal sentencing, even though over 90% of sentences are handed down by state courts.

Berman cites another problem with the Supreme Court’s punt on acquitted conduct sentencing. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent says that “the Sentencing Commission, which is responsible for the Sentencing Guidelines, has announced that it will resolve questions around acquitted conduct sentencing in the coming year.” The Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett statement says, “The Sentencing Commission is currently considering the issue.”

Neither is correct.

Berman suspects that Sotomayor’s dissent and Kavanaugh’s statement were written months ago, before the Sentencing Commission – which proposed an acquitted conduct sentencing amendment in January – withdrew its acquitted conduct sentencing proposal for further study on April 5th. What’s more, when the Commission released its proposed 2024 amendment cycle priorities last month, acquitted conduct sentencing was conspicuously absent.

“It no longer seems to be accurate to state that the Commission ‘has announced that it will resolve questions around acquitted-conduct sentencing in the coming year’” or that it is currently considering the issue, Berman wrote last week.

The Supremes seem to expect the USSC to assume the burden. The USSC, which is ill-equipped to do so, expects SCOTUS to do its job. Expect nothing from either body on acquitted conduct sentencing: you won’t be disappointed.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Inartful dodgers: constitutional concerns with acquitted conduct that only SCOTUS can address (July 4, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Inartful dodgers: did the Justices write cert denial statements in the acquitted conduct cases months ago? (July 5, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

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

IS 13 A LUCKY NUMBER FOR ACQUITTED CONDUCT?

For the past five months, we’ve been watching McClinton v. United States, a petition in front of the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of acquitted-conduct sentencing.

You’d think that fact that a jury has acquitted a defendant of criminal conduct should prevent a court from taking that conduct into account at sentencing, but since United States v. Watts in 1997, as long as a defendant is convicted of any criminal offense, punishment for that offense can be enhanced to account for conduct for which a jury found the defendant not guilty.

Some state courts have held acquitted conduct sentencing to be unconstitutional, and some former Supreme Court Justices – Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – and current Justice Clarence Thomas have condemned the practice.

McClinton and four similar petitions were relisted once in January. “Relisting” means the justices considered the petitions at a weekly conference and then deferred a decision on whether to grant review (certiorari) to the next conference. A “relist” suggests that one or several Justices support granting the petitions.

In late January, the Dept of Justice got the Supreme Court to place a hold on McClinton and four other petitions by essentially assuring SCOTUS that proposed Guidelines amendments rolled out by the Sentencing Commission on January 12th – which included a proposal to ban acquitted conduct sentencing – were going to fix the problem. 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.”

You may recall that after selling the Supreme Court on tabling the acquitted conduct petitions, DOJ filed an unctuous set of comments with the Sentencing Commission a few weeks later arguing the USSC lacked authority to place restrictions on acquitted-conduct sentencing because 18 USC § 3661 bars restricting judges as to the information about the background and conduct of defendants that they can consider.

(As an aside, I note that McClinton’s counsel promptly informed the Supreme Court about DOJ’s gamesmanship in trying to torpedo McClinton because the Sentencing Commission would fix the problem at the same time it was whining to USSC that the agency lacked the legal right to do so).

The Sentencing Commission decided on April 5 not to act on acquitted conduct this year, although it said it would try to take the issue up next year. Now, maybe because of DOJ’s duplicity, the Supreme Court relisted those original five cases for a second time, to be discussed at last Thursday’s conference. And now, the five pending petitions have been joined by an additional eight cases raising the same or similar issues.

As John Elwood put it in SCOTUSBlog last week, “We’ll find out soon how lucky these 13 petitions are.” ‘Soon’ could be this morning at 9:30 am Eastern, when the results of last week’s conference are announced.

McClinton v. United States, Case No. 21-1557 (petition for certiorari pending)

SCOTUSBlog, Acquitted-conduct sentencing returns (May 24, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Catching up, yet again, with a big bunch of relisted acquitted conduct petitions pending before SCOTUS (May 24, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

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