HIGH COURT TIGHTENS DRUG-LORD CONVICTION RULES

Series Of Offenses Must Be Proved One By One

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the
federal government's war on drugs, ruling that prosecutors seeking to
convict suspected drug lords of engaging in crime sprees must
specifically prove each alleged offense and not merely show generally
that the suspects broke the law multiple times.

In its 6-3 decision, the high court read narrowly a federal law that
subjects drug dealers to at least 20 years in prison if they engage in
a "continuing criminal enterprise," defined in the statute as a
"series" of narcotics offenses.

The justices, in a ruling hailed by defense lawyers, said a jury must
unanimously conclude not only that a defendant violated the law
multiple times but must agree on what the specific violations were.

The federal government, citing the difficulty of prosecuting drug
crimes, had argued in vain that a jury must only conclude that a
series of crimes were committed and need not be unanimous as to the
specific offenses.

The government had maintained that it would impose too onerous a
burden on prosecutors to require them to single out for jurors a list
of specific offenses from the multitude of violations drug kingpins
commit.

But the high court, rejecting the government's argument, said it would
be unfair to people on trial if juries were allowed to convict them of
committing crimes without agreeing unanimously on how or when specific
laws were violated.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers lauded the
court's decision.

"The inviolable right to a jury trial in criminal cases ... must not
be diluted by the government simply throwing multiple charges against
the wall of justice to see if any of them stick," NACDL President
Larry Pozner said.

"Our cherished liberties cannot be protected from governmental
overreaching unless juries are instructed that overcoming the
presumption of innocence requires their unanimous agreement as to each
and every element of the accusation."

The Justice Department, which argued the case before the high court,
had no comment Tuesday.

Writing for the court's majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said
jurors have an obligation to deliberate on whether a defendant has
committed a specific offense and to render their decision unanimously.
The government's argument that jurors need not be unanimous as to
specific offenses would lead to defendants being convicted without
juries engaging in a full discussion of the facts, he said.

"Jurors, unless required to focus upon specific factual detail, will
fail to do so, simply concluding from testimony, say, of bad
reputation, that where there is smoke there must be fire," Breyer wrote.

The case the justices decided, Richardson vs. United States, did not
address the merits of so-called "three strikes and you're out" laws,
which impose long prison terms on people convicted of three felonies
over the course of their lives. Instead, the case addressed the
prosecution's burden under a federal law that requires drug lords
convicted of engaging in a series of felonious drug offenses with at
least five subordinates to be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in
prison.

With its decision, the high court overturned the conviction of Chicago
gang leader Eddie Richardson, whom a jury found guilty of violating
federal drug laws on at least three occasions The justices said the
trial judge erroneously told the jurors that they could convict
Richardson even if they failed to agree on how or when the three
offenses were committed.

Despite ruling in Richardson's favor, the high court indicated that
his future looks bleak. In their decision, the justices said enough
damning, specific evidence of multiple drug crimes probably exists to
support his conviction at retrial.

Joining Breyer's opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter and
Clarence Thomas.

In a vehement dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy assailed the
majority for a decision that "rewards those drug kingpins whose
operations are so vast that the individual violations cannot be
recalled or charged with specificity."

Joining Kennedy's dissent were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.