We are taught from a young age that people are considered “innocent until proven guilty,” a basic principle of due process that is enshrined in our Constitution. Yet in our federal criminal justice system, judges frequently punish people for alleged conduct that they have been acquitted of at trial by a jury of their peers.
“Acquitted conduct sentencing” allows judges to increase a defendant’s sentence based on conduct of which the jury found the defendant not guilty, which defies common sense. Fortunately, leaders from both parties and across the ideological spectrum are calling for an end to this practice.
Erick Osby was a victim of this injustice. He was indicted on seven counts after a police search of both a hotel room under someone else’s name and a car in which he was a passenger. Osby exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial. The jury acquitted him for all counts related to the hotel room and for a firearm charge related to the vehicle search. The federal sentencing guidelines recommended a maximum sentence of 30 months for the two drug charges of which he was convicted. Yet a judge nearly tripled that sentence by using the acquitted conduct to “enhance” the conviction (essentially ignoring the jury’s acquittal).
Read Full Article »