The U.S. Supreme Court's current judicial session is in full swing, and one of the cases before the Court deals with the topic of sentencing. Depending on the outcome, judges may no longer be able to take into account a defendant's rehabilitation initiatives when issuing a new sentence following an appeal.
The case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court involves a young man named Jason Pepper, convicted of conspiracy to distribute meth and cocaine in a Wisconsin federal court in 2003. The general procedure and facts of the case are as follows:
- Pepper's original sentence: Pepper received a 24-month prison sentence, far below the suggested federal sentencing guidelines of 97 to 121 months. (The presiding judge chose to deviate from the sentencing guidelines because Mr. Pepper had no prior criminal convictions, fully cooperated with authorities after his arrest, was willing to plead guilty to the crime instead of insisting upon a protracted trial, and completed a drug treatment program.)
- Prosecution appealed sentence: The prosecution appealed the sentence given to Pepper, claiming that the district court judge abused his discretion by giving Pepper a more lenient sentence and deviating from the federal sentencing guidelines.
- Pending appeal: Pepper completed his original 24-month sentence and pending his appeal, exhibited good behavior. He found a job, got married and enrolled in a local college (where he maintained an "A" average in spite of all the stress surrounding his ongoing criminal case).
- Appellate court reversed, remanded case back to court for resentencing: The appellate court - agreeing with the prosecution's argument - vacated Pepper's original 24-month sentence and remanded the case back to the district court where Pepper was to be given a new sentence.
- New judge issued same 24-month sentence: A new judge again sentenced Pepper to 24-months in prison, this time taking into account his post-sentence actions ("good behavior") exhibited during his appeal.
- Prosecution appealed case second time: The prosecution appealed the case again, claiming the district court judge erred under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 by taking Pepper's positive, post-sentence rehabilitation into account when handing down the new sentence.
- Appellate court reversed case again, remanded case back to court for resentencing again: The appellate court again reversed Pepper's 24-month sentence and ruled that the judge could not consider Pepper's post-sentencing rehabilitation when handing down a sentence below the guidelines.
- Pepper petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. They vacated the appellate court's decision and asked the appellate court to reconsider.
- Appellate court reversed again, remanded back to district court: The appellate court agreed with its prior decision and remanded back to a new district court to issue a new sentence.
- New judge issued tougher sentence: This time around, the new district court judge - the third one to sentence Pepper - handed down a new, 65-month prison sentence - a much longer term than his original 24-month sentence.
- Pepper petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court again: Pepper and his attorneys again asked the U.S. Supreme Court for their opinion. Pepper argues that after the appeals court vacated his original 24-month sentence and sent his case back to court, the second judge's consideration of Pepper's good behavior and rehabilitation should have been allowed in implementing the new sentence. Pepper also argues that the third judge (the one that handed down a tougher sentence) violated the "law of the case" because he deviated from the previous judge's sentencing decision.
-
U.S. Supreme Court to decide outcome: In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to hear Pepper's case again, and will address the questions outlined in the Pepper's petition.
Implications for Future Defendants
The Supreme Court's decision could turn out badly for Pepper, sending him back to jail to serve more time.
Some argue that a defendants' positive, rehabilitative actions should certainly play a part in determining their sentence. Part of the legislative intent behind sending defendants to "correctional facilities" upon pleading guilty or being convicted of a crime is so the defendants can correct, change or better their behavior in order to become productive citizens in society when released.
An advocate from Cornell University Law School says that, "The consideration of defendants' post-sentencing behavior may allow courts to avoid punishing defendants more than is necessary to achieve the rehabilitative goals of punishment."
According to the sentencing guideline statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 3553) a court can consider certain factors when imposing a sentence upon a defendant - factors such as "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant."
To some, the statute is clear and Pepper's original 24-month sentence was suitable and appropriate. A judge can rightfully consider the "characteristics of the defendant" when determining a defendant's sentence.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in granting certiorari the first time around in this case, agreed with a judge's right to consider numerous factors saying that, "...if the judge ignored the defendant's model behavior, he would be going against guidance that a sentence should be sufficient but not greater than necessary to deter criminal conduct...and protect public against future crimes because the sentence would be too harsh for the defendant's current behavior."
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision in this case - a decision that will affect the prison terms of many future defendants. Hopefully, the Supreme Court's decision this time around will rest on Justice Ginsburg's principles and rule determine that applying a recommended, one-size-fits all sentence to all defendants who are convicted or plead to the same crime is unjust.
