The ruling affects individuals sentenced for federal crimes
It is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system: the right to a trial by jury. Yet in some cases, an individual can be sent to prison for allegedly criminal conduct without ever appearing before a jury. In June, the Supreme Court decided that the law that permitted federal judges to sentence certain defendants to prison without the input of a jury was unconstitutional.
As a criminal defense lawyer Santa Ana, CA can explain, the law at issue involves the federal government’s supervised release system. After a person is convicted of a federal crime, they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment and then a period of release. During supervised release, individuals agree to comply with certain conditions, like not committing any new offenses and submitting to drug testing. If they violate the terms of their release, they can be sent back to prison for the remaining term of their supervised release.
However, people convicted of certain sex crimes who violate their supervised release can be sentenced to additional prison time under a federal law. This statute requires judges to impose new prison time for a violation of supervised release. This is done without a jury’s involvement, and using a lower standard — “preponderance of the evidence” — than used in criminal trials (“beyond a reasonable doubt”). This law was recently struck down by the United States Supreme Court.
In United States v. Haymond, defendant Andrew Haymond was convicted at age 18 of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to 38 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. After he left prison, he was accused of possessing child pornography once again. Mr. Haymond and his attorneys contested this claim, and the judge in his case agreed that the government likely would not have had enough evidence to convict Mr. Haymond of the crime if he had been on trial for possession of child pornography.
However, Mr. Haymond was not on trial for a new offense of possession of child pornography. He was charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release. Despite there being little evidence that he had even possessed the child pornography in question, the judge was required to sentence Mr. Haymond to an additional 5 years to life in prison — far beyond his original sentence.
According to an experienced criminal defense lawyer Santa Ana, CA, the Sixth Amendment of the United States constitution requires the government to prove every element of a crime. Under the Fifth Amendment, each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet this law allowed a judge (not a jury) to find a defendant guilty using a lesser standard.
The Supreme Court found that this law was unconstitutional. “Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person’s liberty. That promise stands as one of the Constitution’s most vital protections against arbitrary government.”
This ruling may not have a broad impact, as most offenders who violate supervised release will only be sent back to prison for the remaining term of their release — which was the original amount authorized by the jury. But it is an important case, in that it demonstrates the Court’s commitment to the rights of defendants in criminal cases. It also affirms that the government must prove every element of a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Chambers Law Firm represents defendants who have been charged with criminal offenses in Santa Ana and the surrounding areas. To learn more about how we can help you or to schedule a free initial appointment with a skilled criminal defense lawyer Santa Ana, CA, contact our firm today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com.
