Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing: A Quagmire Neither the Supreme Court Nor the U.S. Sentencing Commission Can Continue to Avoid
It would be a surprise to many, but it has been common knowledge to criminal practitioners for years, that a criminal defendant's sentence for a crime which they have been convicted can be increased based on consideration of conduct that the jury acquitted. As some have observed, this outcome can make a partial acquittal in federal court into a pyrrhic victory as the defendant's sentence is impacted by the same behavior that the jury concluded was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And not just impacted on the margin — a defendant's sentence can be greatly increased.
This is true in both white-collar cases and in cases involving drug dealing or crimes of violence. Take the case of Dayonta McClinton, who was convicted by a jury of being one of a group that robbed an Indianapolis CVS pharmacy in 2015. See, McClinton v. United States, petition for cert. pending, No. 21-1557 (filed June 10, 2022). The jury acquitted McClinton of even more serious conduct — the shooting of one of the other robbers in the back of the head at point-blank range. Nonetheless, the sentencing court found, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, that McClinton did commit the homicide. As a result, the sentencing court more than tripled McClinton's Sentencing Guidelines Range, from 57-71 months, based on the robbery, to a sentence of 228 months, holding him responsible for the homicide.
State of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing Jurisprudence
Where does the practice of using acquitted conduct in sentencing come from? Even long before the Sentencing Guidelines were conceived and enacted, the Supreme Court has reiterated that a judge is entitled to consider "the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics" in criminal sentencing. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949). This is so even for "past criminal behavior which did not result in a conviction." BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 573 n.19 (1996). Congress codified the general principle that sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider various kinds of information when sentencing a criminal defendant: "[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence." 18 U.S.C. §3661.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?