COMPLEX ISSUE: LOWER COURTS ORDERED TO RECONSIDER TERMS IN DRUG CASES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday where it left
off in June -- directing a potential revolution in federal criminal sentencing.

The court Monday vacated sentences for four narcotics defendants because
the central fact that determined the sentence -- the quantity of drugs
involved in the offense -- had been decided by the judge rather than the jury.

The justices instructed the lower courts to reconsider the sentences in
light of the Supreme Court's ruling June 26 that any fact that increases
the penalty for a crime beyond the usual statutory maximum has to be found
by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court dealt Monday with the leading edge of dozens of cases that will
need to be reconsidered in the aftermath of the 5-4 ruling in Apprendi vs.
New Jersey, a decision that cut across the court's usual ideological
boundaries and raised the prospect that the federal sentencing guidelines
themselves might be unconstitutional because many crucial findings were
made by the judge alone.

The maximum federal sentence for possession of any quantity of heroin or
cocaine is 20 years, which can be raised to 30 years if the defendant has a
prior conviction.

But if a defendant who has two or more serious drug convictions is then
found guilty of an offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, a
separate section of the law mandates a sentence of life in prison. After
the Apprendi decision, that arrangement became problematic because the
judge, rather than the jury, makes the factual finding on the quantity of
drugs.

The four cases the court acted on Monday shared a similar outline. For
example, one defendant, Bobby Joe Burton, was indicted for conspiracy to
manufacture and distribute crack cocaine. The indictment did not specify
any quantity. After a federal jury in Houston found Burton guilty, the
trial judge found that the amount was "in excess of 99 grams,'' sufficient
to merit a life sentence.

Responding to Burton's appeal, Burton vs. United States, the solicitor
general's office conceded to the court that the life sentence was "plain
error'' under the Apprendi decision.

The Apprendi decision, which took much of the legal world by surprise,
invalidated a New Jersey hate crime law under which defendants received
longer sentences if their criminal actions were motivated by prejudice. The
finding of prejudice was made by the judge, using the relaxed
"preponderance of the evidence'' standard of proof.

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, the judge makes a number of
crucial findings that do not necessarily bring a sentence above the
statutory maximum, but that can have the effect of increasing a sentence
sharply within the statutory range. Whether the Supreme Court will rule
these sentencing practices unconstitutional remains to be seen.

Other Cases

In other action Monday, the Supreme Court:

Let stand the dismissal of a lawsuit by 31 members of Congress who said
that President Clinton overstepped his authority by ordering, without
congressional approval, the U.S. military to take part in the NATO bombing
campaign last year in Yugoslavia.

Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Campbell, who is running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein
for Senate, was the lead plaintiff. "Today, our country is a little weaker,
and our liberties a little less sure,'' Campbell said in a written statement.

Rejected an appeal by two gun makers, Navegar Inc. and Penn Arms Inc., that
challenged Congress's authority to ban the manufacture, sale and possession
of semiautomatic assault weapons. The assault-weapons bill was written by
Feinstein.

"What is clear to me from the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the case
is that there is a legitimate right of Congress to use the interstate
commerce clause in the regulation of firearms in this country,'' Feinstein
said in a written statement.

Let the University of California-Los Angeles run an experimental elementary
school that makes children's race a factor when selecting its students. A
lower court said the university has a justifiable reason for considering
race and therefore does not violate the rights of children it turns away.

Let Connectix continue selling computer software that allows people to run
Sony PlayStation games on personal computers. The ruling stands until a
lower court rules on Sony's claim of unfair competition.

Refused to throw out a $5 billion damage award that Exxon Mobil Corp. was
ordered to pay over the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Exxon
Mobil's lawyers claimed there were irregularities during jury
deliberations. The company has other appeals pending.

Turned down an appeal by a Kansas boy suspended from school for drawing a
picture of a Confederate flag in class. The youth contended the suspension
violated his free-speech rights. School officials said he violated a
"racial harassment and intimidation'' policy.