ISNOINews
Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Position Papers, Letters and Petitions Signed By The Church of Scientology National Affairs Office.
For more information, please see the following thread on the original ESMB:
www.forum.exscn.net
As noted in the thread on the original ESMB, it appears the purpose of these Church of Scientology National Affairs Office position papers, letters and petitions is to help it gain support from and form alliances with churches, religions, and civil rights organizations.
*********************************
New Information:
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office Joins Coalition Supporting the Prohibition of Punishing Acquitted Conduct.
ATR Joins Coalition Supporting the Prohibition of Punishing Acquitted Conduct
And/Or
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
September 26, 2019
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2019
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein:
The undersigned organizations write in support of the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2019, which was introduced this week by Senators Durbin and Grassley, and cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Tillis, Booker, and Lee. This bill would end the unjust practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted by a jury.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees of due process and the right to trial by jury for those accused of a crime are fundamental to our criminal justice system. These guarantees require the government to prove a defendant’s guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite this, current federal law allows judges to override a jury’s not guilty verdict by sentencing a defendant for the very conduct he or she was acquitted of by the jury. This is because the law requires a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, but allows a judge to impose sentencing enhancements based on the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence.
Permitting sentencing based on acquitted conduct is unjust, undermines due process, and subverts the critical function of jury trials in our legal system. This practice has been roundly criticized by practitioners, judges, and scholars. In one case, three defendants were convicted of possessing small amounts of crack cocaine, but were acquitted by the jury on conspiracy to distribute charges. Nevertheless, the judge increased their sentences based on them engaging in a conspiracy. Though the Supreme Court did not take the case, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas, stated that the practice of sentencing based on acquitted conduct “has gone on long enough” and constituted a likely violation of the Sixth Amendment. Additionally, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch introduced the original version of this bill in 2018, and has persuasively argued that justice depends on conviction by a jury, not a judge.
Allowing acquitted conduct to be considered in sentencing also exacerbates the trial penalty, which is generally manifested in the significant difference in sentence between what a defendant receives via plea bargain and what his or her sentence would be if convicted at trial. This trial penalty has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial in the federal system. It also contributes to the possibility of innocent people pleading guilty, because they fear the long and harsh sentence they would receive if convicted at trial, even if the chance of conviction is remote. Unsurprisingly, the crucial constitutional protection that the right to trial by jury provides is weakened when a defendant may be sentenced based on conduct even when he or she is acquitted of that conduct by a jury. This contributes to coercive plea bargaining and to the trial penalty.
We urge you to support this bill, which would eliminate an unjust practice and would strengthen the protections our Constitution provides.
If you have further questions, feel free to contact Nathan Pysno, Director of Economic Crime and Procedural Justice at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, at 202- 465-7627 or [email protected].
Respectfully,
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
#Cut50
Aleph Institute
American Civil Liberties Union
American Conservative Union
ALEC Action
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Digital Liberty
Drug Policy Alliance
Due Process Institute
Fair Trials
Faith and Freedom Coalition
FAMM
Federal Public and Community Defenders
Innocence Project
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
Prison Fellowship
R Street Institute
Right on Crime
The Sentencing Project
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Tzedek Association
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
For more information, please see the following thread on the original ESMB:
Position Papers, Letters and Petitions Signed By The Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Position Papers, Letters and Petitions Signed By The Church of Scientology National Affairs Office. In the past, I have individually cross-posted...
www.forum.exscn.net
As noted in the thread on the original ESMB, it appears the purpose of these Church of Scientology National Affairs Office position papers, letters and petitions is to help it gain support from and form alliances with churches, religions, and civil rights organizations.
*********************************
New Information:
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office Joins Coalition Supporting the Prohibition of Punishing Acquitted Conduct.
ATR Joins Coalition Supporting the Prohibition of Punishing Acquitted Conduct
And/Or
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
September 26, 2019
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2019
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein:
The undersigned organizations write in support of the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2019, which was introduced this week by Senators Durbin and Grassley, and cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Tillis, Booker, and Lee. This bill would end the unjust practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted by a jury.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees of due process and the right to trial by jury for those accused of a crime are fundamental to our criminal justice system. These guarantees require the government to prove a defendant’s guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite this, current federal law allows judges to override a jury’s not guilty verdict by sentencing a defendant for the very conduct he or she was acquitted of by the jury. This is because the law requires a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, but allows a judge to impose sentencing enhancements based on the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence.
Permitting sentencing based on acquitted conduct is unjust, undermines due process, and subverts the critical function of jury trials in our legal system. This practice has been roundly criticized by practitioners, judges, and scholars. In one case, three defendants were convicted of possessing small amounts of crack cocaine, but were acquitted by the jury on conspiracy to distribute charges. Nevertheless, the judge increased their sentences based on them engaging in a conspiracy. Though the Supreme Court did not take the case, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas, stated that the practice of sentencing based on acquitted conduct “has gone on long enough” and constituted a likely violation of the Sixth Amendment. Additionally, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch introduced the original version of this bill in 2018, and has persuasively argued that justice depends on conviction by a jury, not a judge.
Allowing acquitted conduct to be considered in sentencing also exacerbates the trial penalty, which is generally manifested in the significant difference in sentence between what a defendant receives via plea bargain and what his or her sentence would be if convicted at trial. This trial penalty has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial in the federal system. It also contributes to the possibility of innocent people pleading guilty, because they fear the long and harsh sentence they would receive if convicted at trial, even if the chance of conviction is remote. Unsurprisingly, the crucial constitutional protection that the right to trial by jury provides is weakened when a defendant may be sentenced based on conduct even when he or she is acquitted of that conduct by a jury. This contributes to coercive plea bargaining and to the trial penalty.
We urge you to support this bill, which would eliminate an unjust practice and would strengthen the protections our Constitution provides.
If you have further questions, feel free to contact Nathan Pysno, Director of Economic Crime and Procedural Justice at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, at 202- 465-7627 or [email protected].
Respectfully,
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
#Cut50
Aleph Institute
American Civil Liberties Union
American Conservative Union
ALEC Action
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Digital Liberty
Drug Policy Alliance
Due Process Institute
Fair Trials
Faith and Freedom Coalition
FAMM
Federal Public and Community Defenders
Innocence Project
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
Prison Fellowship
R Street Institute
Right on Crime
The Sentencing Project
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Tzedek Association
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
.
