DRUG TRIAL RULING TO BE REVISITED

Decision Wiped Out Law That Gave Judges Power To Increase Sentences

At the request of every U.S. attorney in the West, a federal appeals
court in San Francisco agreed late Friday to revisit a ruling that in
August wiped out a major drug-sentencing statute created during the
Reagan administration's war against drugs.

The court agreed to rehear the three-judge panel's decision with 11
judges. In an unusually expedited manner, the circuit set oral
arguments here for Sept. 29. Every federal public defender in the
circuit that covers nine western states opposed the rehearing.

In August, the judges found that a 1984 drug-sentencing law
unconstitutionally allowed a judge, rather than a jury, to increase
prison sentences based on the quantity of drugs found.

The case involved Calvin Buckland, who received a 27-year sentence for
possessing 17 pounds of methamphetamine in Seattle. The circuit panel
said that because the jury was never asked to find how much of the
drug was seized, the judge could not automatically increase his
sentence by seven years based on his own conclusions on the amount of
drugs discovered.

Prosecutors, in their appeal, said the decision could affect thousands
of drug defendants whose sentences were enhanced by a judge without a
jury determining how much drugs were discovered. The circuit decision
covers federal drug prosecutions in California, Nevada, Arizona,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii.

Defense attorneys said the case was in line with a June Supreme Court
ruling that found a defendant was entitled to a jury decision, not a
judge's, on whether he acted out of racial bias in an alleged hate
crime.