Juror Complains to Judge About Sentencing for Acquitted Conduct

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Sentencing for acquitted conduct: if the jury acquits the defendant of most charges, the prosecutor can go back to the judge and say, well, since I think he's REALLY guilty of the big charges just go back and sentence him as if he were anyway. Fuck the jury.

Yeah, the supreme court gave it their stamp of approval, if you were wondering.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/7/155357/8910

Juror Complains to Judge About Sentencing for Acquitted Conduct
By Jeralyn

Don't miss this article in the Washington Times this article in the Washington Times[/URL] about an upset juror. Here's his letter to the Court (pdf) which is causing quite a stir.

The jury had acquitted the defendants of all but some small drug sales. Juror #6 learned from a press release the defendants could still get 40 years.

I write because I recently saw a press release from the US Attorney’s Office which states that Gregory Bell and Joseph Jones were sentenced to 16 years and 15 years, respectively, “for their roles in this case”. It also states that Antwuan Ball, Desmond Thurston, and David Wilson “each face up to 40 years imprisonment for the narcotics crimes for which they were convicted.”

Can this be true? We as a jury found these individuals guilty of somewhere around 20 instances of selling drugs, but as I remember it, most of these were very small amounts. And this was over a period of nearly 10 years. Now
I’m not a lawyer, but after 30 years of living in the District, I believe people selling small amounts of crack on the street usually end up with probation or only a year or two in prison if they have a previous offense.
Click to expand...

[More...]

As you remember, Judge Roberts, we spent 8 months listening to the evidence, filling countless court-supplied notebooks, making summaries of those notes, and even creating card catalogues to keep track of all the witnesses and their statements. We deliberated for over 2 months, 4 days a week, 8 hours a day. We went over everything in detail. If any of our fellow jurors had a doubt, a question, an idea, or just wanted something repeated, we all stopped and made time. Conspiracy? A crew? With the evidence the prosecutor presented, not one among us could see it. Racketeering? We dismissed that even more quickly. No conspiracy shown but more importantly, where was the money? No big bank accounts. Mostly old cars. Small apartments or living with relatives.

It seems to me a tragedy that one is asked to serve on a jury, serves, but then finds their work may not be given the credit it deserves. We, the jury, all took our charge seriously. We virtually gave up our private lives to devote our time to the cause of justice, and it is a very noble cause as you know, sir. We looked across the table at one another in respect and in sympathy. We listened, we thought, we argued, we got mad and left the room, we broke, we rested that charge until tomorrow, we went on. Eventually, through every hour-long tape of a single drug sale, hundreds of pages of transcripts, ballistics evidence, and photos, we delivered to you our verdicts.
Click to expand...

He adds,

What does it say to our contribution as jurors when we see our verdicts, in my personal view, not given their proper weight. It appears to me that these defendants are being sentenced not on the charges for which they have been found guilty but on the charges for which the District Attorney’s office would have liked them to have been found guilty. Had they shown us hard evidence, that might have been the outcome, but that was not the case. That is how you instructed your jury in this case to perform and for good reason.
Click to expand...
Juror #6, Jim Caron, age 60, died of heart problems a few weeks after writing the letter. I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves.
 
Last edited:
good article. I wish they could link it to the actual case and appeals though so I could get a read on decisions.

I have to say, it makes a great argument for jury nullification since prosecutors and judges tend to think that people are just too stupid to know how to interpret laws.
 
i see nothing that shows the prosecutor asked the judge to sentence them for the crimes acquitted...just because a juror "believes" that people "usually" get less sentences does not mean that the sentences are not valid.

unless you have something else, this is a bogus story
 
Watermark said:
Hey moron, he's referring to a specific legal doctrine, mentioned in the title. "Sentencing for Acquitted Conduct", mr. fascist.

http://www.georgiafederalcriminallawyerblog.com/2009/01/federal_criminal_sentences_may.html
http://www.wislawjournal.com/archive/2007/0212/acquitted.html
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/08/01/challenging-acquitted-conduct-sentencing.aspx
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/09/strong-commenta.html
Click to expand...

you're the moron...

YOUR link and post only mentions the jurors BELIEVING they are being sentenced for crimes they were acquitted. there is NOT a single thing in YOUR link that is analogous to the links above where the judge IN FACT enhanced sentencing for acquitted acts.

all your post talks about is the juror believing that in this city people with those crimes get less time...not single fact points out where the judge in fact enhanced sentencing for acquitted conducted.

as i said before, unless you have something else, your story IN THIS CASE is bogus
 
ib1yysguy said:
Never thought I'd see the day when a conservtard called the Washington Times bogus.
Click to expand...

ibedumbass...perhaps if you had read the link you would have found the washington post link does not work...and if that is all you had to say, then you really have nothing to say

but the fly by night underwhelming one line zinger strikes again!
 
ib1yysguy said:
dumbass redneck:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/juror-no-6-questions-rules-of-sentencing/
Click to expand...

did you get that from clicking the link in WM link? this is what i get:

Page not found
Seems like we can't locate the file you were looking for!
Either the file no longer exists, the URL has been mistyped, or that file has been moved. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Washington Times Home Page

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/juror-no-6-questions-rules-o f-sentencing/
 
ok, your link works

if the prosecutor did that, that should be overturned if the judge in fact enchanced the sentence for something someone was acquitted on. judges enhance all the time for things not convicted of, but those facts are undisputed, not contested as in an acquital.
 
Yurt said:
ok, your link works

if the prosecutor did that, that should be overturned if the judge in fact enchanced the sentence for something someone was acquitted on. judges enhance all the time for things not convicted of, but those facts are undisputed, not contested as in an acquital.
Click to expand...

In WMs link, there is a space between the o and f in the word 'of'. comes off the specific blog.
 
Yeah, it links to the times in the blog post, I just didn't manually reinsert the link into the words when I copied and pasted this time.
 
Yurt said:
if the prosecutor did that, that should be overturned if the judge in fact enhanced the sentence for something someone was acquitted on. judges enhance all the time for things not convicted of, but those facts are undisputed, not contested as in an acquittal.
Click to expand...

Apparently, when they calculate the sentencing commissions recommendations (which a lot of judges do these days, use the mathematical formula for justice™ instead of relying on human intuition) they sometimes (or always?) calculate the sentence as if crimes they were acquitted of were committed as well as the crimes they are guilty of. I don't believe that this can't go beyond the statutory maximum for the crimes they are guilty of (indeed, if they were convicted of all the crimes they couldn't, according to that recent supreme court case).

But I still don't think it's constitution or right for ANY government program that widely has a direct or indirect effect on sentencing (like the sentencing commission) to recommend or imply that it's even appropriate for judges to practice this.
 
Watermark said:
Apparently, when they calculate the sentencing commissions recommendations (which a lot of judges do these days, use the mathematical formula for justice™ instead of relying on human intuition) they sometimes (or always?) calculate the sentence as if crimes they were acquitted of were committed as well as the crimes they are guilty of. I don't believe that this can't go beyond the statutory maximum for the crimes they are guilty of (indeed, if they were convicted of all the crimes they couldn't, according to that recent supreme court case).

But I still don't think it's constitution or right for ANY government program that widely has a direct or indirect effect on sentencing (like the sentencing commission) to recommend or imply that it's even appropriate for judges to practice this.
Click to expand...

thats the thin lawyerly line for ya. when lawyers become judges.
 
Watermark said:
Apparently, when they calculate the sentencing commissions recommendations (which a lot of judges do these days, use the mathematical formula for justice™ instead of relying on human intuition) they sometimes (or always?) calculate the sentence as if crimes they were acquitted of were committed as well as the crimes they are guilty of. I don't believe that this can't go beyond the statutory maximum for the crimes they are guilty of (indeed, if they were convicted of all the crimes they couldn't, according to that recent supreme court case).

But I still don't think it's constitution or right for ANY government program that widely has a direct or indirect effect on sentencing (like the sentencing commission) to recommend or imply that it's even appropriate for judges to practice this.
Click to expand...

i agree. CA has a 3 tier sentencing structure, low mid high. and based on circumstances involving the convicted crime, the judge can sentence based on statutory factors. but the judge cannot consider something if someone has been found not guilty on, judges used to do that and it was struck down...if i recall correctly

interestingly, when considering whether an inmate is suitable for parole the parole panel "judges" can consider anything, convicted or not...
 
Yurt said:
i agree. CA has a 3 tier sentencing structure, low mid high. and based on circumstances involving the convicted crime, the judge can sentence based on statutory factors. but the judge cannot consider something if someone has been found not guilty on, judges used to do that and it was struck down...if i recall correctly

interestingly, when considering whether an inmate is suitable for parole the parole panel "judges" can consider anything, convicted or not...
Click to expand...

The legislators were probably just trying to adopt as wide a definition as possible in response to the "get tough" criticism of the parole system, while also trying not to displease those who would be opposed to outright abolition. Of course, states can consider parole however they want to constitutionally, since its not a right. Judges doing using some of the same practices in what is supposed to be a fair trial is simply not acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top