Judges can still punish acquitted defendants
In refusing to consider a Wisconsin man's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court says jurists can issue prison sentences even if the jury has cleared the defendant of certain crimes.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused today to reconsider a legal rule that might surprise most Americans. It allows judges to punish defendants for certain crimes even after a jury has acquitted them of the charges.
In recent years, the justices have described the right to jury trial as one of the bedrock principles of American law. But they have been unwilling to say that a jury's not-guilty verdict means the defendant cannot be punished for these charges.
Instead, the court has said judges may take into account "acquitted conduct" when they decide on a prison term.
The case of Mark Hurn from Madison, Wis., provides a stark example. The justices today turned away his appeal of an extra 15-year prison term for having crack cocaine after a jury had acquitted him on the crack cocaine charges. He was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, a charge that would warrant between two and three years in prison under the federal sentencing guidelines.
The high court endorsed this "acquitted conduct" rule a decade ago in a California case, but they did so in a brief opinion. They agreed judges can decide on the right sentence for a convicted criminal by "relying on the entire range of conduct" presented by prosecutors, not just the charges that resulted in guilty verdicts.
But in recent years, that rule has allowed judges to give defendants long prison terms even when a jury rejected key parts of the prosecution's case.
In Hurn's case, the U.S. appeals court in Chicago agreed that his nearly 18-year prison term was "based almost entirely on acquitted conduct." Nonetheless, the judges upheld his full sentence last year, citing the Supreme Court's earlier rulings.
His case began in 2005 when police in Madison searched his home and found drugs in various locations. They seized 450 grams of crack cocaine, about 50 grams of powder cocaine and $38,000 in cash. Hurn admitted he was a drug dealer, but at his trial, he testified the crack belonged to other people who lived in the house.
A jury convicted him of possessing powder cocaine, but it acquitted him of the crack cocaine charges. Nonetheless, prosecutors said he should be punished for both the crack and powder cocaine offenses, and they recommended a sentence of about 20 years in prison.
U.S. District Judge John Shabazz agreed with the prosecutors and said there was good reason to believe Hurn was guilty of the crack cocaine charges. He imposed a sentence of nearly 18 years.
Lawyers for Hurn appealed to the Supreme Court last fall, arguing that federal prosecutors should not be permitted to "execute an end-run around" the jury. They cited several recent rulings in which the justices described the right to a jury trial as one of the bedrock principles of American law.
But today, the justices turned down the appeal petition in Hurn vs. United States without comment.
"This is very disappointing," said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University professor who is an expert on sentencing. "They have dodged this for now, but eventually the Supreme Court will have to grapple with this again."
Berman said several lower courts, including the U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati, are considering the same issue.
david.savage@latimes.com
