REVERSAL SOUGHT ON DRUG RULING

U.S. Attorneys Say War Compromised

Warning that the federal government's ability to prosecute major drug
traffickers is at stake, the U.S. Justice Department moved Thursday
to wipe out a recent federal appeals court ruling that struck down
one of the key weapons in the war on drugs.

In an extraordinary request, the U.S. attorneys from nine Western
states, including California, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to immediately withdraw an Aug. 10 ruling that found
Congress' 1984 sentencing scheme to punish major drug traffickers
unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit ruling, which has sweeping
implications for thousands of drug cases across the West, invalidated
the principal means federal prosecutors have used since the Reagan
administration to punish drug dealers.

'Threatens Sentences'

The panel's decision will seriously hamper the government's ability
to prosecute large-scale drug trafficking in this circuit," Bush
administration lawyers wrote. "The panel's decision threatens to
invalidate countless sentences and will result in a deluge of
litigation in the district courts of this circuit."

The Justice Department's urgent legal maneuver stems from a 2-1 9th
Circuit decision in a Seattle case involving convicted
methamphetamine dealer Calvin Buckland. Federal drug laws have relied
heavily on sentencing defendants based on the amount of drugs
involved in a case, but the federal appeals court found that
unconstitutional.

Among other things, the 9th Circuit struck down the 1984 law because
it empowered a judge, instead of a jury, to increase prison sentences
based on evidence introduced after trial about the amount of drugs
associated with a defendant. The law allowed judges to increase
sentences beyond the statutory maximum based on drug amounts.

Minimum Sentences

In striking down the statute used to impose these so-called
"enhanced" sentences, the 9th Circuit also wiped out mandatory
minimum sentences, a controversial method of imposing prison terms on
drug dealers that vastly reduces a judge's discretion.

"The potential reach of this is pretty enormous," said Barry Portman,
Northern California's federal public defender.

The 9th Circuit based its ruling on a sentencing decision last year
by the U.S. Supreme Court, splitting with four other federal appeals
courts to consider the issue.

In its brief, the Justice Department warns that the ruling already is
causing chaos in the courts. Defendants are withdrawing from plea
agreements, seeking to dismiss indictments and appealing sentences,
according to prosecutors.