CRACK CONVICTS FACE RESENTENCING ALONE

WASHINGTON - As the federal courts begin the unprecedented task of
deciding whether thousands of prisoners should receive lower crack
cocaine sentences, some judges are telling poor convicts that they
won't get lawyers to help them argue for leniency.

As a result, some prisoners are being left to argue on their own
behalf against skilled prosecutors, raising questions about fairness.
The recalculations come after a 20-year debate over racial
disparities in cocaine sentences. A majority of crack cocaine
defendants are black, while most powder cocaine defendants are white
and received much less severe sentences. The U.S. Sentencing
Commission issued new recommendations last year for lighter penalties.

Many of the 20,000 prisoners who are eligible say they're too poor to
hire lawyers to ask for lower sentences. Many judges have appointed
federal defenders to represent poor prisoners at taxpayers' expense,
saying it ensures that the requests will be handled efficiently.
Other judges have not appointed attorneys, saying they aren't needed
for a straightforward sentencing matter.

The constitutional right to an attorney after criminal indictment and
during trial and sentencing is undisputed. But several federal
appeals and district courts have said that judges generally don't
have to appoint attorneys for convicted criminals who are seeking
corrected sentences. Without lawyers, some defendants with legitimate
requests will be overlooked, say federal defenders who are screening
many of the crack cocaine cases.

"We're being left to fend for ourselves," said Eyvonne Garrett, a
prisoner in Fort Worth, Texas, who was denied an attorney and a lower
sentence. "Without an attorney, we don't have a voice."