Since federal mandatory minimum sentences were enacted in 1986 and prosecutors began to “run our federal criminal justice system,” as the judge said, much of the debate has focused on the reduction of judges’ power in sentencing. The Booker case and others have restored some of it, but there remain excessive mandatory minimums, which Congress should rescind. But Judge Young, like other judges and scholars, has campaigned to restore the jury’s constitutional role in sentencing to ensure that criminal laws are applied fairly. The federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums have substantially diminished that role. In this case, Judge Young properly used it in imposing a sentence based on the jury’s finding about a critical fact.

June 1, 2012

A Jury Draws a Line

Rodney Gurley faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for possession of 28 or more grams of crack cocaine with an intent to distribute it because he had previously been convicted of a felony.

The police found 32 grams in the apartment where he was arrested, but a federal jury in Boston found that the amount of crack “properly attributable” to Mr. Gurley did not exceed 28 grams. Relying on the jury for guidance, Federal District Judge William Young sensibly imposed a sentence of 30 months. That riled the Justice Department, which insisted it was entitled to have the judge, not the jury, decide factors in sentencing and that Mr. Gurley should have gotten the 10-year minimum. The government has appealed the sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in United States v. Booker that any fact necessary to increase a defendant’s sentence “must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” The government’s view in this case is that since the police found 32 grams of cocaine, Judge Young should have imposed the longer term. In his recent sentencing opinion, Judge Young explained that his discretion was limited by the jury’s finding once the government agreed that the court should ask the jury to decide the cocaine amount at issue as “a factual question central to the defendant’s culpability.”

Since federal mandatory minimum sentences were enacted in 1986 and prosecutors began to “run our federal criminal justice system,” as the judge said, much of the debate has focused on the reduction of judges’ power in sentencing. The Booker case and others have restored some of it, but there remain excessive mandatory minimums, which Congress should rescind.

But Judge Young, like other judges and scholars, has campaigned to restore the jury’s constitutional role in sentencing to ensure that criminal laws are applied fairly. The federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums have substantially diminished that role. In this case, Judge Young properly used it in imposing a sentence based on the jury’s finding about a critical fact.