LAWYER ATTACKS CRACK SENTENCES IN LONG-SHOT FEDERAL CLASS ACTION

A lawyer who has fought for reduced criminal sentences for nearly two
decades has filed a long-shot class action in an attempt to mitigate
thousands of harsh criminal sentences at once.

Marcia G. Shein, of Atlanta's two-attorney Shein & Biggs, is trying to
do--through civil litigation in a federal district court in
Georgia--what dozens of other lawyers have failed to do in criminal
proceedings: obtain a ruling that the different federal sentences for
crack and powder cocaine violate the civil rights of black defendants.

Under a law Congress passed when crack first swept through the
nation's cities in 1988, a given amount of crack is treated at
sentencing as the equivalent of 100 times as much of the virtually
indistinguishable powder cocaine, from which it comes. Crack was also
made the only drug for which federal law mandates imprisonment for
simple possession.

Because crack is typically sold in smaller amounts than powder
cocaine, it is more readily available to lower-income individuals--
which has led it to be disproportionately consumed by blacks.

Sentencing statistics reflect that disparity--and then some: In fiscal
year 1996, 94.5% of federal crack defendants were black or Hispanic,
and only 4.8% were white.

Ms. Shein alleges that a further racial disparity exists in deciding
whether to charge crack offenders in the state or federal systems--a
decision that can make an immense difference because most states have
substantially more lenient sentences for first-time crack offenders.

In the Eastern District of Washington, the suit alleges, whites make
up 9.3% of the federal crack defendants but 28.9% of state defendants.

Ms. Shein concedes that every federal appellate court that has
considered the issue has upheld the sentencing. Judges have said they
found no evidence that Congress intended to create a racially
discriminatory sentencing regime.

But she argues that two subsequent reports undertaken pursuant to
congressional order have changed the landscape: Both reports
identified a disparate racial impact of the sentencing structure, and
neither found any legitimate basis for the 100-to-1 sentencing ratio--
yet Congress refused to enact any of the remedial measures the studies
suggested.

"We now have Congress being willfully blind to something that was
proven, in a study made at their own request, to be wrong," Ms. Shein
said. "That's evidence of an intent to punish the race and not the
crime."

On March 22, the office of U.S. Attorney Richard H. Deane Jr., in
Atlanta, filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that, while its
fundamental challenge is to the plaintiffs' sentences, they have not
shown that they have exhausted their appellate remedies. The
government also notes the unanimity among appellate courts concerning
the constitutionality of the disparate sentences, and it argues that
the purported class members lack the commonality required for class
certification.

The suit-- Graves v. U.S ., No. 99-213--is before U.S. District Judge
Jack T. Camp. Judge Camp has not yet set a date for oral argument on
the government's motion.