COURT: SILENCE EXTENDS TO SENTENCE

WASHINGTON, - The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a
defendant who has entered a guilty plea still has the right not to
incriminate herself in the sentencing phase of a trial.

In the case that brought the ruling, a drug defendant in Allentown,
Pa., who earlier pleaded guilty to cocaine distribution, chose
silence and did not present evidence in the sentencing phase.

Before accepting her guilty plea, a federal judge told Amanda Mitchell
in 1995 that she faced a mandatory sentence of a year in prison simply
for distributing cocaine, but she faced a 10-year minimum if
prosecutors could show she distributed more than five grams.

At her sentencing hearing, three co-defendants testified Mitchell had
sold one and a half to two ounces of coke twice a week for one and a
half years.

Mitchell's lawyers presented no evidence for sentencing, maintaining
that the trial showed she had distributed less than five grams.

However, the judge interpreted her silence as more evidence of her
guilt, sentencing the woman to the harsher sentence based on the
testimony of co-defendants, and told Mitchell she had no right to
remain silent.

A federal appeals court affirmed.

But in today's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the
Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination prevails,
adding, ``We hold that the (guilty) plea is not a waiver of the
privilege at sentencing.''

Further, Kennedy said, a judge may not draw conclusions because a
defendant chooses to remain silent at sentencing.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.

Though Rehnquist joined the dissent, he read the majority decision for
Kennedy, who was absent on holiday.

Today's decision reverses the lower courts and sends the case back
down for a new hearing and a result in line with the decision.