U.S. Judges Overturn Sentencing Guidelines

The judges of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles have struck down a sweeping new package of federal sentencing regulations, ruling that the “rigid, computerized nature” of the sentencing guidelines violate defendants’ rights to a punishment tailored to the crime.

In the first ruling ever issued by the court as a whole, the judges held 13 to 10 that the highly structured new regulations developed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission violate both defendants’ due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution.

Penalties Stiffened

The guidelines, which took effect Nov. 1 for all federal crimes, stiffen penalties in such areas as white-collar crime and eliminate much of the judiciary’s historic broad discretion by prescribing narrow sentencing ranges for specific crimes.

“Quite simply, the mechanical formulas and resulting narrow ranges of sentences prescribed by the guidelines violate defendants’ right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment by divesting the court of its traditional and fundamental function of exercising its discretion in imposing individualized sentences according to the particular facts of each case,” Senior Judge A. Andrew Hauk wrote for the court majority.

The 10 judges who dissented from the opinion discounted those concerns, arguing that “we judges . . . must refrain from the temptation to classify our own beliefs in this respect as constitutional dogma.” The dissenters have agreed, however, not to impose the new guidelines in their courtrooms to assure uniformity in sentencing.

By ruling on the issue en banc, Los Angeles federal judges have avoided much of the confusion that has beset federal courts elsewhere in the nation, where a variety of conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of the guidelines have resulted in disparities from courtroom to courtroom on how sentences are handed down.

But the dissent, written by U.S. District Judge Harry L. Hupp, nonetheless predicts “chaos” in the coming months because of many unanswered questions in the majority opinion and in other similar opinions across the country ruling the guidelines unconstitutional.

For example, the dissent argues, it is not clear whether the court intended to invalidate that portion of the sentencing law that eliminated the federal parole system.

Parole Question

“Does parole still exist and, if not, how should this affect sentencing decisions?” the dissent inquires. “Should we sentence under the guidelines when a defendant does not challenge the validity of or desires to be sentenced under the guidelines? How do we take a (guilty) plea? How is a defense attorney to advise the client as to the effect of the plea?

“Other knotty problems can be seen with a little imagination,” the dissent argues.

But Deputy Federal Public Defender Carlton Gunn, who coordinated the estimated 15 constitutional challenges to the guidelines filed in Los Angeles, said those questions will have to be addressed on an individual basis in the coming months.

“Basically, I’m very pleased at the way they ruled, obviously,” Gunn said. “The only thing I wish is that the other 10 judges had agreed.”

James Berliner, the assistant U.S. attorney who coordinated challenges in Los Angeles for the Justice Department, said a decision on whether to appeal the ruling will have to be made in Washington.

Pleased About Speed

“We’re certainly pleased that the District Court has moved quickly to resolve the issue, and it is our hope that the Supreme Court will resolve it on an expedited basis,” Berliner said.

The District Court’s ruling is binding in the seven-county area that makes up the Central District until the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the constitutionality issue. The appellate court has already scheduled arguments on an appeal from San Diego, where judges have been divided on the guidelines.

Federal lawyers throughout the country are hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a final determination quickly, ending the confusion that has grown as judges have divided over the issue.