Sentencing Issues That Arouse Constitutional Concern
Petition this week
June 25, 2021
This week, we focused on the petition requesting the Supreme Court to consider the use of acquittal in sentencing decisions, when the sentencing court must consider the defendant’s juvenile status as a commutation factor, and sympathetic release under the First Step Act.
According to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, judges can adjust the recommended crime range based on the defendant’s “related behavior”. Although the jury considers whether the conduct is proved to exclude reasonable doubt, the relevant conduct used for sentencing purposes only needs to be proved to the judge by superior evidence, and may include the act of acquittal.in Osby v. United States, Erick Osby was charged with seven counts; the jury found him guilty of two counts and acquitted him on the other five counts. But because the judge considered his innocence charge to be related, his sentence was the same as the sentence the jury convicted of all seven charges. Osby argued that adjusting the penalty based on the act of acquittal violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which ensured due process and the right to trial by jury.Although the Supreme Court has Refuse In order to solve similar problems on this subject in the past, some judges Expressed their dissatisfaction Use the practice of acquittal in sentencing decisions. Osby asked the judge to review to determine whether this practice is unconstitutional.
Next, in Sanders v. Ratke Judges are required to consider the impact of juvenile status on sentencing decisions. Petitioner Rico Sanders was convicted of multiple rapes and assaults at the age of 15, and was sentenced to 140 years in prison, with possible parole at the age of 51.Sanders insisted that the Eighth Amendment and previously precedent Ask the sentencing court to use his youth as a factor in reducing his sentence. He argued that the principle of requiring the sentencing court to use adolescents as a commutation factor applies to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, just as it applies to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.The petition further stated that Sanders’ youth was used by the sentencing court as an “aggravating factor” and he sought court review to clarify the defendant’s youth have to It is regarded as a mitigating factor.
At last, Bryant v. United States A question was raised about the compassionate release clause of the Federal Criminal Code, as amended by the 2018 First Step Act. The sympathetic release clause allows the district court to find federal prisoners “extraordinary and convincing” and reduce their sentences “in accordance with the applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission.” In 2007, the Sentencing Commission issued a policy statement that listed “extraordinary and convincing” reasons for sympathetic release and encouraged the Bureau of Prisons to file a sympathetic release motion when the prisoner was found to meet the standards. However, in 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which amended the sympathetic release clause to allow federal prisoners to also propose relief motions instead of relying on the Bureau of Prisons to decide their release.
In 2019, Thomas Bryant filed a compassionate release motion in the District Court. The government opposed his motion and argued that the reasons given in Kobe’s motion did not meet the criteria in the 2007 policy statement. In addition, the government argued that the 2007 policy statement was an “applicable” policy statement under the sympathy release clause, and therefore the district court was bound by it. The district court rejected Bryant’s motion based on the reasons given by the government, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit confirmed it. Bryant argued that the decision created a split in the circuit and directly conflicted with eight other circuit courts regarding whether the district court was bound by the 2007 policy statement in determining whether the defendant’s motion was bound. He sought a review to clarify the “applicable” policy statement of the defendant’s motion filed under the “First Step Act.”
These and others Petition this week as follows:
Osby v. United States
problem: Whether a verdict on the criminal defendant based on the accusation of acquittal by the jury violated the Fifth Amendment or the Sixth Amendment.
Palade v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas System
problem: Did the lower courts mistakenly believe that when applying retrospectively the revised policy on dismissal and academic discipline to tenured faculty members and faculty members who have been granted tenure on the former board of directors, the petitioner lacked the eligibility trustee policy to seek declarative relief?
Sanders v. Ratke
problem: Does the precedent of the Eighth Amendment clearly stipulate that the sentencing court must consider the defendant’s juvenile status as a commutation factor before imposing a life imprisonment with little possibility of no parole.
Bryant v. United States
problem: Whether Section 1B1.13 of the “U.S. Sentencing Guidelines” is an “applicable” policy statement, binding the district courts 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), As amended by the First Step Act of 2018.
Berrier v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission
problem: Whether it is a concluding country, only by creating an interstate contract, it waives all sovereignty over the contract entity, unless expressly reserved.