HIGH COURT HANDS JUDGES MORE SAY IN DRUG CASES

At issue: When both powder, rock cocaine are involved, can sentence be based
on harsher crack penalties?

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave federal judges more
authority to set prison sentences in cocaine-trafficking cases.

In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that when a jury convicts a
defendant of conspiring to violate federal drug laws, it falls to the judge
to decide whether to base the sentence on powdered or crack cocaine if both
forms of the drug were used in the crime. This can make a big difference in
a defendant's sentence because crack crimes get stiffer punishment than
powdered-cocaine crimes.

The disparity in sentencing for powder and crack remains a contentious issue
in the courts, in Congress and among prisoners and their advocates.
Sentences are based largely on the weight of the drugs involved, and under
current law, crack dealers get the same prison time as people who sell 100
times the amount of cocaine powder.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1995 proposed making the sentences for the
two types of cocaine equal. But Congress rejected the proposal, with some
members saying the disparity is justified by the violence accompanying some
crack use.

The Clinton administration has favored narrowing the different penalties (to
a 10-1 ratio) but has opposed full equalization.

Tuesday's ruling focused on the appeal of five Rockford, Ill., gang members
who were found guilty of conspiring to sell drugs and received prison
sentences ranging from 10 years to life.

The trial judge had told the jury that it could find the men guilty of an
illegal conspiracy if it believed they were involved with either powdered
cocaine or crack. Then, when the judge sentenced the men, he based the
prison time on both cocaine and crack.

The defendants argued that the judge should not have found that crack was
involved in the conspiracy. They said when a jury issues a verdict in a
multi-drug conspiracy, the judge must sentence a defendant for the drug
carrying the lesser punishment or hold a new hearing on specific drug
charges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled against the men.

In its decision affirming the lower court Tuesday, the Supreme Court said
federal law allows judges to determine which drugs were involved in
ambiguous cases.

``The Sentencing Guidelines instruct the judge in a case like this one to
determine both the amount and the kind of `controlled substances' for which
a defendant should be held accountable -- and then to impose a sentence that
varies depending upon amount and kind,'' Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for
the court in Edwards vs. United States.

In a separate case Tuesday, the justices heard oral arguments on whether
state prisoners are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Pennsylvania officials, backed by numerous states, are contending that the
sweeping disabilities law is ambiguous about the scope of its coverage and
that states have authority to decide their criminal codes and rules of
punishments.

But it appeared from the justices' questions Tuesday that they believe the
law offers broad protection to people with disabilities in public facilities
and programs.

The case involves a state prisoner with a history of hypertension whose
illness caused the state to say he couldn't participate in a boot camp
offered as an alternative to confinement. A ruling in Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections vs. Yeskey is likely to be handed down before the
court recesses this summer.