Hope for "Crack" defendants
The power of federal district courts was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in two decisions delivered yesterday. In Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949 (12/10/07), the District Court had departed downward, and sentenced Gall to probation instead of the recommened guideline sentence of 30-37 months. The Court emphasized again tha the guidelines are advisory, and no longer mandatory. A district court must consider the guideline sentence, but is free to vary from that sentence if it believes that is appropriate. The court noted that the District Court is in the best position to determine what sentence is appropriate. That decision should be reviewed only to determine if the court abused its discretion. As a result, as long as the Court considers the proper factors, it is free to impose a sentence outside the recommended guideline range.
The other case is Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330 (12/10/07). In that case, the Court determined the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine was not reasonable. The court looked at the sentence for the same amount of powder cocaine, and ultimately imposed the mandatory minimum sentence. The issue was whether the court could impose a sentence based on its disagreement with the sentencing guidelines. Since the sentencing commission has been trying for several years to change the crack cocaine guidelines (and finally did so this year), the court had no problem in holding that was a proper consideration.
The practical effect of both these cases is that District Courts should feel like they can impose a non guideline sentence without fear of being second guesssed by a Court of Appeals. As long as the court articulates the proper factors, the Court of Appeals should defer to the District Court's decision on punishment. It is now the attorney's job to convince the court that a particular sentence is appropriate; Attorneys can again be advocates for their clients.
