« Indiana Courts - Replacement of Judge Kouros will fall to Gov. Daniels | Main | Indiana Decisions - 7th Circuit posts one »

Monday, November 29, 2004

Indiana Courts - Blakely in action in Northern District trial

"Jury power latest federal trend: Trials could become theatrical if juries decide sentencing as well as verdicts" is the headline to a great report today, by Bill Dolan, in the Munster Times. Some quotes:

EAST CHICAGO | Three city officials at a recent special hearing faced a federal jury that had just convicted them of misappropriating federal funds and gave the political performances of their lives.

City councilmen Joe De la Cruz, D-at-large, and Frank Kollintzas, D-4th, dressed in somber dark suits, and City Controller Edwardo Maldonado, in mourning black shirt and pants, packed the courtroom with family and friends who exuded a sympathy for the defendants they hoped would be contagious.

They wanted the world to know they were not common criminals. Defense lawyers argued the trio had led otherwise exemplary lives and had earned another chance.

Normally, such a display would have fallen on the deaf ears of a sentencing judge who would have made them feel the full weight of federal sentencing guidelines for prison terms.

But a revolution taking place in criminal justice put the sidewalk jurors in front-row orchestra seats for a courtroom drama that either may be a one-time performance -- or replayed across the land.

A sidebar to the story explains:
How Supreme Court decision may give juries more power:

The federal sentencing guidelines were formulated two decades ago to help judges calculate the length of a prison visit or probation based on a crime's unique details and the convict's prior criminal history.

They were forumulated to ensure that convictions for similar offenses by similar defendants didn't result in widely divergent sentences, depending on the habits or particular views of judges. Instead, the guidelines sought to make sentences uniform by restricting judges from going above or below a specific range of penalties.

But the U.S. Supreme Court sent federal courts into turmoil in June with a 5-4 decision that struck down a Washington state sentencing system that is much like the federal guidelines.

The majority said a Washington state judge erred by nearly doubling the sentence of Ralph Howard Blakely Jr., who abducted his estranged wife at knife-point in 1998. They ruled only a jury could make that kind of decision.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges in Chicago decided last month the Blakely decision, though based on a state case, dooms the federal guidelines. The Supreme Court, which has heard arguments for and against the guidelines, is expected to rule soon.

The U.S. Justice Department, fearing the federal sentencing guidelines for judges will be overturned, has demanded separate jury verdicts in cases where they want a defendant's sentence enhanced.

The special sentencing hearing in East Chicago sidewalk case was the first in the Northern Indiana District to be held since the Blakely ruling. The first such hearing in the country took place earlier this month in Houston, Texas, in a trial involving the Enron stock scandal.

The main story notes:
The special jury hearing could be overturned by a later judicial ruling. But area lawyers are betting on the new trend in federal criminal justice -- jury power. That is, allowing juries to have more of a say in sentencing, not just in delivering a verdict.

"I think it's a great thing," Arlington Foley, a veteran Merrillville defense lawyer, said.

"Years ago, juries used to know what the penalties were and a lot of times they issued compromise verdicts. Now they are getting back to letting juries compromise to do that again.

"Now, maybe sympathy does filter into the equation a little bit at sentencing, at least jurors get their opportunity to say they felt bad about finding the person guilty, but maybe they can cut the person some slack," Foley said.

T. Edward Page, president of the Lake County Bar Association and a former criminal court magistrate, said current federal sentencing guidelines put too much power in the hands of court probation officers who fit the facts of the crime and the person's criminal background into a complex grid of possible sentences.

"Jurors were shunted aside and not being allowed to participate fully in the process. They complained to judges nationwide and that started the jurors' rights movement," Page said. He said as magistrate he let jurors take notes and ask certain questions of witnesses. He predicted other changes might occur to make jurors' jobs easier.

"Jurors were shunted aside and not being allowed to participate fully in the process. They complained to judges nationwide and that started the jurors' rights movement," Page said. He said as magistrate he let jurors take notes and ask certain questions of witnesses. He predicted other changes might occur to make jurors' jobs easier.

One former county prosecutor said jurors who have no further involvement in the criminal justice system after the case ends are more likely to give a convict a break on sentencing than a judge "whose worst fear is being reversed and looking bad. There is a temptation to go with the prosecutors, give him the guidelines -- and see you later."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 29, 2004 07:59 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts