US President-elected Donald Trump. — Reuters/file

The judge...

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison for the murder of George Floyd.; Credit: /Court TV via AP

A Minnesota judge sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday for the murder of George Floyd.

Judge Peter Cahill wrote that part of the mission of the Minneapolis Police Department is to give citizens "voice and respect."

"Mr. Chauvin, rather than pursuing the MPD mission, treated Mr. Floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. In the Court's view, 270 months, which amounts to an additional ten years over the presumptive 150-month sentence, is the appropriate sentence."

Read Cahill's entire sentencing order and memoradum for Chauvin below.

Chauvin, 45, was convicted in April of all three charges he faced — second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

He was sentenced only on the first of the charges, the most serious, as is typical in Minnesota.

Cahill said Chauvin's crime included four aggravating factors: that Derek Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority as a police officer, that he treated Floyd with "particular cruelty," that he committed the crime as part of a group with at least three other people, and that children were present during the commission of the offense.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

WARSAW, 3 June 2016 – Michael Georg Link, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), expressed concern today over yesterday’s sentencing by a court in Dushanbe of two leaders of the banned Islamic Renaissance Party (IRPT) to life imprisonment, and 11 other high-ranking party officials to jail terms ranging from two to 28 years.

“The harsh sentences handed down yesterday, following the earlier ban of the IRPT and the arrest and harassment of its members and their families and lawyers, raise concerns in relation to the commitments Tajikistan has made as an OSCE participating State to uphold key values of democracy, including political pluralism and political participation,” the ODIHR Director said. “ODIHR has raised this issue with the authorities in the past, and asked for more information on the rationale behind these actions.”

The IRPT party officials were convicted and sentenced by the court on charges that they had conspired in and taken part in the organization of an army coup in the country in September 2015. At that time, the Supreme Court banned the party as an “extremist and terrorist organization”.

The trials leading up to yesterday’s sentences were held behind closed doors, with the proceedings off-limits to the media as well.

“Fair-trial rights are a central element of the rule of law, and measures limiting public scrutiny of and access to criminal proceedings can only undermine confidence that these rights are being upheld,” Director Link said. “ODIHR continues to stand ready to support the Tajik authorities in fulfilling the country’s OSCE commitments in the areas of political pluralism and the rule of law.”

Related Stories

• OSCE/ODIHR Director concerned about reported rise of hate incidents in the United Kingdom, supports calls for tolerance in a challenging time
• OSCE/ODIHR Director Michael Link expresses shock over Orlando shootings, commends calls for unity in face of hatred and terror
• ODIHR Director Link welcomes U.S. Supreme Court decision throwing out conviction, death sentence of African-American man from all-white jury

The Supreme Court's decision on Thursday requiring sentencing factors to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt will create a surge in challenged sentences.

The following article, Lawfare Freeze: Judge Merchan Delays Decision On Trump Sentencing, was first published on Conservative Firing Line.

BREAKING: Justice Merchan has granted a request from prosecutions/defense to pause deadlines — including Trump's sentencing date — while they consider the effect of his election as president. https://t.co/LaeJlAyTDi pic.twitter.com/SAHVbo3HbG — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 12, 2024 Developing … * * * Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge …

Continue reading Lawfare Freeze: Judge Merchan Delays Decision On Trump Sentencing ...

A New York Supreme Court justice will decide Tuesday if President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing will move forward later this month.

Five Penn State Altoona criminal justice students participated in the third annual Federal Mock Sentencing Exercise at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Johnstown on Thursday, Oct. 24.

Byzantine penal codes make sentencing an esoteric science and leave inmates with little recourse

A federal judge has delayed the sentencing of former Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano and his wife for their corruption convictions.

The magistrate who sentenced a man over the assault of a champion surfer says she took into account the public scolding he's received when deciding his punishment.

Aleksey Tsvetkov, 40, blew up while an Assistant U.S. Attorney recited his criminal history during his sentencing hearing in Brooklyn Federal Court on racketeering charges..

The Food Standards Agency welcomes the sentencing of a man who unlawfully sold DNP for human consumption.

“We want to ensure that these crimes don’t pay.” Michael Caplan QC, Sentencing Council Member In an era where price fixing and anti-competitive practices attract fines measured in billions, the disparity associated with sentencin...

There is no tension between a sentencing scheme that is effective and fair and one that is tough and equitable. We must work toward these twin goals and we must do so now.

"I applaud the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions and Senators Durbin and Graham, in taking such an important step toward reforming our sentencing laws. I look forward to the Senate and the House approving this legislation quickly so that it can be signed into law."

As we can all agree, our sentencing policies must be tough, predictable and aimed at: enhancing public safety; reducing crime; reducing recidivism; eliminating unwarranted disparities; minimizing the negative, often devastating effects of illegal drugs; and inspiring trust and confidence in the fairness of our criminal justice system.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday urged Congress to pass the bipartisan Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Mike Lee.

In testimony delivered before the U.S. Sentencing Commission Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed a proposed change to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that would reserve the harshest penalties for the most serious drug offenders.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder—who testified before the U.S. Sentencing Commission last month in support of a proposal to reduce the federal sentencing guidelines for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders—released the following statement Thursday in response to the Commission voting to formally adopt those changes.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday that the Justice Department would formally support a proposal under consideration by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to allow certain individuals serving time in federal prison for nonviolent drug offenses to be eligible for reduced sentences.

Attorney General Eric Holder today released the following statement regarding the U.S. Sentencing Commission vote approving retroactivity of sentence reductions for drug offenses

There are significant potential benefits to using data-driven risk assessments in criminal sentencing. For example, risk assessments have rightly been endorsed as a mechanism to enable courts to reduce or waive prison sentences for offenders who are very unlikely to reoffend. Multiple states have recently enacted laws requiring the use of risk assessment instruments. And…

Oscar Pistorius is a 'broken man' after killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a psychologist told the athlete's sentencing hearing. He could get up to 15 years in jail.

Boxer and former Birmingham City and Sheffield United striker Curtis Woodhouse has caused uproar on Twitter for messages on his profile ridiculing the Oscar Pistorius trial.

On Thursday, James Comey shared a gif from the video of Mariah Carey's 2003 hit 'Obsessed' that simply showed the singer asking: 'Why are you obsessed with me?'

The friend wrote in a character reference to the court that he believed Crilley was an 'honourable person and a good human being'. The judge chose other words.

The clip showed two males kicking the deer to death in a Pennsylvania woodland. As of Wednesday more than 500,000 people were seeking criminal charges against the pair.

Bagaric, Mirko, author

Renwick, James, 1963- author

Out of the 13 accused in the case, a altogether nine persons were arrested while four were still at large.