America is getting worse at an accelerating rate.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-obama-could-say-about-criminal.html

Wow–Stevens went out on a limb to get one right.

For the right of trial by jury to really be preserved, the jury must be responsible for determining all significant matters of fact. Unless a jury makes a catalog of what evidence they find credible and not credible, there’s no fair way a judge can determine whether an allegation has been proven by a preponderance of credible evidence.

Indeed, I’ll go further and state that juries must be aware of the maximum sentences defendants can face and/or impose limits themselves. Even if one regards the job of a jury as merely being one of finding innocent or guilt, more severe punishments require more substantial showings of criminal intent than lesser ones.

Suppose someone is charged with obstructing an emergency vehicle because–through his own negligence but not intention–his vehicle broke down in a place where it blocked an ambulance. If a finding of guilt would carry a $20 fine and no other consequence, a reasonable jury should probably convict. If a finding of guilt would mean a 50-year prison term with no possibility of parole, a reasonable jury must acquit. If a jury had the authority to convict with the condition that the defendant face no consequence beyond a particular fine, that would be fair, but otherwise there would be no way a jury could know whether to convict or not without knowing what punishment the defendant would face.

At around 11:00 this morning they (jury) asked for the door, the battering ram, a cd (audio – probably of the 1st interview), a viewer and a diagram of the house…

The logical conclusion to the continual escalation of the “scorched earth” anti drug policies is, literally, scorched earth. Eventually some drug warrior zealot will guilt someone into thinking about the children while giving the drug warrior access to our nuclear launch codes, and then the war on drugs will finally be won. And the last thing that goes through John Walters’ head will be “hmm, maybe there was a better way to go about thi….”

My sad prediction is they find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and throw in the distribution and gun use as ‘lesser’ charges out of sympathy for the widow.

If I had to guess, I’d bet the jurors are trying to piece together exactly what RF saw from his perspective.

Yup they will have to “disarm us for our own protection”.

I hate to read too much into jury requests, but it seems that the verdict is going to rely upon whether they believe Ryan when he says that he didn’t know it was the cops… from the type of evidence they asked for (physical evidence, not trial transcripts) I’m hoping it’s a good thing.

What I fear is that an increase in these incidents will result in further restrictions to our rights under the 2nd amendment, not any relief in the 4th amendment area. What a sad state.

If misspelling WORDZ was a crime, I’d be on deathrow.

I am no typist either.

Well hell, I guess I need to figure out WHAT I AM!

Geesh, waiting on this verdict is gut wrenching.

*hangs head in shame*

I’m not a lawyer, but I can see a reason for the ranges. The sentencing ranges still make sense in terms of allowing variation to accommodate variations in the egregiousness in the commission of the crime for which the defendant was actually convicted.

Considering prior convictions in sentencing may make sense, since those are established fact as far as the court is concerned (and a good reason for defendants not to plead to crimes they haven’t committed). In sentencing, considering crimes for which the prosecution has tried the defendant and explicitly failed to convict him seems very unjust.

This isn’t a great analogy, but imagine if I have been charged with breaking a promise to hand-carry an adult Kodiak grizzly up a set of stairs and my defense is that I never made that promise. It would be pretty easy for a jury to reasonably doubt that I promised to do something that is obviously impossible for me to do. But, if the judge decides that they can also convict me for breaking a promise to carry a koala up a set of stairs, then obviously I might have to change my whole defense strategy.

Okay, I need caffeine, but I maintain that all the charges the jury are to consider should be known with certainty in time for the defense to prepare for them.

Sentencing ranges certianly have their place and prior convictions, acceptance of responsibility for ones actions, remorse, etc. (or lack thereof) should be considered. But if you are found “not guilty” by the jury than that crime or act should be off the table.

While you are technically correct. This is lawyer-speak nonsense.

Well, I am a lawyer, and we are talking about legal concepts, so I can’t help it.

I am curious what you think the limit should be on conduct considered in sentencing. If the judge is to consider NO conduct other than the crime charged and proved, then ranges of punishment don’t make a lot of sense. Each crime should have one number attached to it.

I think you’re also considering how sentencing can go the other way. A judge can consider a defendant’s lack of priors and general good character in granting a lower sentence (perhaps probation). Should that be permitted?

They do more time than they would have otherwise, sometimes even exceeding guidelines, just because the judge feels they are guilty of the crimes of which they were acquitted.

So while not “sentenced for” those crimes they are serving time for them.

A judge has always been permitted to consider prior bad acts when sentencing, as long as the defendant is sentenced within the range of punishment for the crime of which he was convicted.

Take O.J. Simpson as an example. Once he was convicted of robbery and kidnapping, the sentencing judge was free to consider
O.J.’s prior bad acts in the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (for which O.J. was found liable), but the judge could only sentence O.J. in the range for kidnapping and robbery.

Watts stands for exactly that proposition. If criminal conduct is shown by a preponderance of the evidence, then that conduct may be considered in sentencing the defendant for crimes he is convicted of, even if the defendant is acquitted. Judges have always been entitled to consider the defendant’s conduct when sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661.

Now, it may well be that 18 U.S.C. § 3661 should be read as limited by Apprendi/Ring/Blakely, but no defendant is ever sentenced for crimes of which he is acquitted. It just doesn’t happen.