Judges’ powers to sentence limited again
on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:09 am
The Supreme Court on Monday curbed federal judges’ power to impose minimum sentences on career criminals, finding that judges must confine their review of evidence regarding prior convictions to the charging document, plea agreements’ terms, or admissions by the defendant in an exchange with the trial judge.
The Court rejected the federal government’s argument that judges could also look to police reports or the evidence cited by police in applying for a criminal complaint about the earlier cases. The issue in the case was the scope of judges’ discretion to examine facts about whether earlier burglaries involved “violent crimes.”
The ruling in Shepard v. U.S. (docket 03-9168), a mixed decision between voting on different parts of an opinion authored by Justice David H. Souter, appeared to raise the prospect that the Court may be on the verge of removing the last remaining exception to the Apprendi v. New Jersey ban on judicial fact-finding on enhanced sentences — that is, prior convictions. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion, said that the 1998 ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. U.S. has been eroded by the Apprendi line of cases.
Justice Souter, in a footnote responding to the dissenters’ charge that Monday’s ruling meant a likely extension of Apprendi to prior convictions, commented: “It is up to the future to show whether the dissent is good prophesy, but the dissent’s apprehensiveness can be resolved right now, for if the dissent turns out to be right that Apprendi will reach further, any defendant who feels that the risk of prejudice is too high can waive the right to have a jury decide questions about his prior convictions.”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in dissent, said that the decision brought a “hint at extending the Apprendi rule to the issue of [armed career criminal] prior crimes.” She said that the hint “surely will do no favors for future defendants in Shepard’s shoes.
The vote was 5-3, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist not participating.
In a second ruling, the Court declared that state prisoners may file a civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionaltiy of state procedures, and are not required to pursue such claims solely under federal habeas law. The ruling in Wilkinson v. Dotson (03-287)was by a vote of 8-1, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy dissenting.
In a third ruling, the Court decided by a 7-2 vote that the U.S. Tax Court may not conceal from court records the reports that are submitted by special trial judges. The decision came in the consolidated cases of Ballard v. Commissioner (03-184)and Estate of Kanter v. Commissioner. (03-1084).
