I guess I don't know as much about the law as I thought I did, because I was shocked when I read this story. It's the story of a man who was sentenced on a charge after a jury had found him not guilty of that charge. Sounds incredible doesn't it? But it's true, and it seems it's a fairly normal practice.
In Madison, Wisconsin, Mark Hurn was arrested after police found both powdered cocaine and crack cocaine in his home. Hurn admitted the powdered cocaine was his, but said the crack belonged to others. A jury agreed and found him guilty of the powdered cocaine charge and not guilty of the crack cocaine charge.
The federal sentencing guidelines were about 3 years for the powder cocaine and 15 years for the crack cocaine. Since he was found not guilty of the crack cocaine charge, one would expect he would be sentenced to 3 years. Instead, the judge sentenced him to 18 years.
You see, back in 1997 the Supreme Court said a judge may consider "acquitted conduct" in determining the sentence. So it was perfectly legal for the judge to tack on an extra 15 years for the crack cocaine even though he was found to be NOT GUILTY OF THAT CHARGE by a jury. In fact, Hurn's lawyer appealed the sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court refused to hear the case.
This is a travesty of justice. According to our Constitution, a defendant has a right to a trial by jury. But if a judge can sentence a person on a charge that the jury found him not guilty on, then that destroys the right to a jury doesn't it?
Hurn would have received the same sentence if the jury had found him guilty, so just what was the point in seating a jury? It obviously didn't matter what verdict the jury came up with.
Maybe the jury came back with a bad (wrong) verdict. But it doesn't matter what I think. It also shouldn't matter what the judge thinks. In our constitutional system of justice, the decision of the jury should be the final word. I believe the judge's sentence was not only wrong, but it was a violation of the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court believes it's OK to be sentenced on a charge after being found not guilty of that charge. How can that possibly be right?
For those of you who believe the United States is a democracy, I have news for you. That hallowed document, the U.S. Constitution, created a dictatorship ruled by a nine-member junta called the Supreme Court. They have the power to overrule any law, legislation or executive order. You don't have inalienable rights, you have constitutional rights. Those constitutional rights are whatever the Supremes say they are or aren't.
ReplyDelete