![](artwork2/27taskbar.jpg) |
The Apprendi case: layman's primer
By Gary Callahan, prisoner of the drug war
On June 26, 2000 the United States Supreme Court decided an
important case called Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466. Petitioner Charles Apprendi fired several shots into the
home of an African-American family and made a statement - which
he later retracted - that he did not want the family in the neighborhood
because of their race. He was charged under New Jersey law with
second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose,
which carries a prison term of 5 to 10 years.
The specific
count against Apprendi, however, did not refer to New Jersey's
hate crime statute. This law provides for an enhanced sentence
if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate
a person or a group because of race. After Apprendi pleaded guilty,
the prosecution filed a motion to enhance the sentence. Key words
here are "preponderance of the evidence," a standard
of proof below what a jury must use and follow. A jury must find
one guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." A preponderance
of the evidence is merely some indication that an individual
probably committed the act alleged. "Enhance" is the
legal euphemism for added time to a sentence.
The New Jersey judge, not the jury, found by a preponderance
of the evidence that the shooting was racially motivated and
sentenced Apprendi to a 12-year term on the firearms count. Apprendi
appealed, claiming that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution required that a bias finding be proved to
a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In plain words, Apprendi's
constitutional rights were denied when a judge, rather than the
jury, found him guilty of the essential hate crime enhancement.
The New Jersey appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision
and Apprendi appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Court of Appeals,
holding that the Constitution requires that any fact increasing
the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum,
other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted
to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To the uninitiated,
this might seem like a 'no-brainer,' but the ramifications of
the Apprendi case were the functional equivalent of logical
shrapnel tearing through the nation's courts, both state and
federal level.
While judges historically could punish an offender if he was
a recidivist, a repeat violator, only recently were offenses
parsed out into many components of the substantive (original,
essential) offense. The parsing out of an offense is called "relevant
conduct," which are add-ons to the charge.
For instance, if one deals drugs, he could also be a "leader
or organizer," which would expose him to an "enhanced"
sentence. If one possessed a gun during certain offenses, he
could be "enhanced" for the gun possession. If he worked
in a bank and embezzled money, the defendant could be exposed
not just to the embezzlement charge, but for abuse of a position
of trust.
Apprendi was "enhanced" for perpetrating a hate
crime. But this question emerged, was it constitutional when
he was neither indicted for that - a Fifth Amendment right -
nor given notice of the enhancement, a Sixth Amendment right?
In Apprendi's particular case, he did not plea to any enhancement
of his sentence, either. He was simply handed two years of extra
punishment without being formally charged. The Supreme Court
voiced its concern over the fact that this is an unconstitutional
measure, and a person must not be given any sentence over the
statutory maximum if the facts were not submitted to the jury
and proved under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Although Apprendi was narrowly confined to that issue,
the implications were huge. Under many of the sentencing guidelines
used by states, and the federal sentencing guidelines imposed
in 1987, thousands of people have been imprisoned beyond the
statutory maximum by a judge's finding of relevant conduct, not
a jury finding. Like so many of these cases, Apprendi was never
formally charged with the enhancement, and the jury probably
never knew he or she would be given an enhanced sentence.
Enhancements were determined by the prosecutor, the probation
office and the judge, which significantly altered the right of
a trial by jury, of citizens finding a person either guilty or
not of the essential elements of the offense. The Supreme Court's
Apprendi ruling is a tacit admission that what was done
from 1987 to 2000 was essentially unconstitutional because the
government is now including in the indictments it writes the
specific sentencing enhancements and providing specific jury
instructions for the proposed enhancements.
More than anything, the Apprendi case has spotlighted
the glaring deficiencies in the criminal justice process under
the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the so-called "new law."
Prior to the new law, for example, if a person was arrested with
a controlled substance, the amount was treated as an essential
element of the offense that had to be studied and considered
by a jury.
With the inception of the new law, it was considered sufficient
in court to simply cite the drug statute and/or "five a
ballpark figure" of the amount of drugs the defendant was
accused of handling. For example, 'over five kilograms of cocaine,'
or 'over five grams of cocaine base,' or 'more than five hundred
kilograms of marijuana.' At sentencing, the judge would then
tack on the Probation Office's report and add drug quantity by
a preponderance of the evidence. That could mean statements made
by a witness or informer or an accumulated amount of controlled
substance sold over a period of time, or even-quite often-a guess.
Because the primary drug statute ranges over huge amounts
of prison time - 10 years to life, 5 to 40 years and 20 years
- it was easy for the prosecution to first obtain a conviction
or plea bargain. At sentencing, it's not much of a problem to
'run the drug amount up' to whatever level is desired based upon
allegations, unsubstantiated statements, hearsay and just plain
'guesstimation.' This is no longer allowed under Apprendi,
where every indictment must now include a specific type and amount
of controlled substance and which must be given to the jury,
or, in the case of a plea bargain, must be agreed to by the defendant.
'Sentencing ambush' was the rule between 1987 and 2000, where
post-Apprendi it is not.
What about relevant conduct which results in a sentence below
the statutory maximum? Many people are sentenced under the theoretical
statutory maximum, of course, and Apprendi has raised
important constitutional questions for this group, as well. The
way appellate judges have gotten around Apprendi since
the decision is by stating-in drug cases especially-that a 19-year
sentence is not over any statutory maximum if the statute reads
10 years to life, (Sec.841 (b) (1) A)); 5 to 40 years, (Sec.841
(b)(1)(B)); not more that 20 years, (Sec.841 (b)(1)(C)).
The rationale is that this is not unconstitutional punishment,
but Apprendi has raised the point that quite possibly
the Constitution requires that any enhancements must be within
the indictment and given to the jury for a finding beyond a reasonable
doubt. To the average citizen this might seem a logical conclusion
because the average citizen has so little understanding how the
American criminal justice system has been handed over so completely
to the Attorney General and his prosecutors.
There are currently several cases granted review that will
hopefully resolve several of the more pressing questions under
the Apprendi doctrine, all of which should be settled
this Supreme Court term, ending in June, 2002:
- 00-10666 Harris v. United States. The question presented
is: Given that a finding of brandishing of a gun results in an
increased mandatory minimum sentence, must the fact of 'brandishing'
be alleged in an indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
- 01-687 United States v. Cotton. The question presented
is, does omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances
the statutory maximum sentence require the court of appeals automatically
to vacate the enhanced sentence? In this case the defendant did
not object to the sentence in district court, and the government
introduced overwhelming proof of the fact that supported the
enhanced sentence, and defendant had notice that the fact could
be used to seek the enhanced sentence.
- 01-488 Ring v. Arizona. The question presented is,
is it acceptable for the legislature to remove from jury assessment
facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which
criminal defendants are exposed; does this not violate the defendant's
Sixth Amendment rights?
The Apprendi decision will either be pinched down to
the point where it will help almost no one - especially if it
is not made retroactive by the Supreme Court - or it will greatly
change the criminal justice landscape, depending on the outcome
of these three cases.
The Razor Wire is a publication of The November Coalition,
a nonprofit organization that advocates drug law reform. Contact
information: moreinfo@november.org
282 West Astor - Colville, Washington 99114 - (509) 684-1550
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
|