COURT REJECTS SENTENCING RULES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave federal judges wide
latitude in imposing punishments in an unusual, two-part decision that
struck down sentencing rules used to set prison time for hundreds of
thousands of criminals since 1987.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said that
federal sentencing rules violate defendants' right to a jury trial by
allowing judges -- rather than juries -- to decide on factors that can
increase sentences beyond certain ranges.

But a separate 5-4 majority, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, said the rules
designed by Congress to bring uniformity and fairness to punishments
shouldn't be junked. Instead, they should be considered by judges on an
advisory basis rather than as mandates.

The seemingly contradictory opinions created widespread uncertainty over
the federal sentencing system and could lead thousands of convicts to flood
courts across the nation with appeals of their sentences.

The disparate opinions came about because one justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
first sided with four colleagues who said the sentencing rules were
unconstitutional because they forced judges to increase prison time based
on certain factors -- such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime --
without putting such questions to jurors.

Then, without saying why, Ginsburg switched to Breyer's side to form a
majority that said the remedy for the problem was to allow the rules to
guide judges toward a sentence, rather than automatically require certain
prison terms.

Breyer's majority said the decision should allow judges to hand down
sentences tailored to specific defendants' conduct. He said that judges
still should look to the guidelines and that sentences should be upheld on
appeal as long as they are "reasonable."

But Justice Antonin Scalia, who was among those who said the rules were
unconstitutional, said it is impossible to know how Breyer's plan will
work. He predicted that it will "wreak havoc" on courts.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray expressed disappointment in the
decision, which could hamper federal prosecutions. Judges now have greater
authority to reject prosecutors' grounds for tougher sentences and to find
their own grounds for handing down lighter sentences than what the
guidelines dictated.

"There are many things that are unclear" about the decision's impact, said
Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor. "But one thing that
appears clear is that judges will have more sentencing power than they have
had in at least a century."