COURT REJECTS EXTRA-LONG TERMS FOR DRUG PUSHERS

Judges' Prerogative Of Adding Time Is Overruled

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court has ruled in a Tacoma case that it
is unconstitutional for judges to add time to drug traffickers' sentences
after a jury conviction.

The decision ends a 17-year-old practice and could ultimately affect
thousands of cases in nine Western states.

In a 2-to-1 decision Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco ruled the sentencing law violates a defendant's right to a jury
trial. The decision was based on a June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in
a hate crime case that said juries, not judges, must decide whether someone
charged with a hate crime was motivated by bias and therefore can be given
a higher maximum sentence.

Under a 1984 federal law, judges could hold hearings after a jury
conviction to determine if more time could be added to the sentence based
on the amount of drugs involved. A narcotics conviction for trafficking
carries up to 20 years in most narcotics cases. With the old law, a judge
could extend that sentence up to life in prison if large quantities of
drugs were involved.

"It does affect thousands of cases ... which otherwise could be charged
with higher penalties," said Barry Portman, the federal public defender in
San Francisco.

The decision came in the case of Calvin Buckland of Tacoma. He was
convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. A
judge sentenced Buckland to 27 years after determining he was responsible
for possessing more than 17 pounds of the drug. The federal ruling would
cut seven years off that sentence.

"The Constitution says we have a right to trial by jury, to have decisions
that affect penalties (determined) beyond a reasonable doubt," said Zenon
Olbertz, Buckland's attorney.

The ruling would cut the maximum drug trafficking sentence to 20 years,
providing an anticipated Justice Department appeal is unsuccessful and that
Congress does not rewrite the law.

Sentences of more than 20 years for nonviolent drug trafficking aren't
common in Northern California, but elsewhere in the appellate circuit, they
are not as rare. The ruling could affect past cases and present plea bargains.