SUPREME COURT REVIEWS ROCKFORD COCAINE CASE

WASHINGTON - To prosecutors, the men who introduced crack cocaine to
Rockford, Ill., were "modern-day gangster" who deserved every day of their
harsh jail sentences.

Two got life in prison without a chance of parole. Others got prison terms
of 10 to 26 years, also without parole, from U.S. District Judge Philip
Reinhard, who said he was setting an example.

The men maintained they were being punished too severely, and Monday they
took those arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an hourlong hearing, the justices considered whether the judge went
overboard when he handed down the stiff sentences to members of "The Mob,"
a Rockford street gang hit hard in a major drug crackdown in 1993.

Chicago lawyer Steven Shobat argued that the judge calculated the sentences
incorrectly, after making decisions that should have been left up to the
jury.

The court's ruling could affect numerous other federal drug cases, but it
likely would have the most dramatic impact on the two Rockford defendants
facing life in prison. If the court accepts their argument, Karl Fort and
Reynolds Wintersmith could be out in 30 years.

The case touches on the controversial discrepancy between the punishment
handed down for distributing powder cocaine and that for crack cocaine.

Federal sentencing guidelines punish defendants much more severely for
selling crack than for selling powder cocaine, and opponents have long
argued the distinction is racist.

At issue in the Rockford case is whether the judge can sentence the
defendants for selling crack and powder cocaine if the jury, when finding
them guilty, did not determine the type of drug involved or the amount. The
judge determined the amounts of powder and crack cocaine attributable to
each defendant.

Shobat argued that because the jury verdict was ambiguous and did not
specify whether the defendants were guilty of dealing powder or crack
cocaine or both, the judge could not make those findings at sentencing.

Instead, where there is no jury finding, the judge is required to sentence
the men on the lesser offense, which in this case involved powder cocaine,
Shobat said.

The argument came on a day when the justices refused to get involved in
several other high-profile cases, including one from New Jersey that asked
justices to strike down a community-notification statute known as "Megan's
Law."

New Jersey enacted the law in 1995, after a twice-convicted sex offender
raped and murdered 7-year-old Meagan Kanka, who lived near his home. It
requires authorities to notify communities and, in some cases, individual
residents when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst.

Since then, 36 other states, including Illinois, have passed similar statutes.

The Illinois law took affect in 1996 and makes available at local police
stations the names and addresses of some 3,600 convicted child-sex
offenders in the state. Schools and day-care centers receive the
information quarterly.

The court's decision not to review the New Jersey law does not necessarily
mean other state laws will withstand Supreme Court review. Indeed, other
challenges are expected but likely will be on different grounds.

In the New Jersey case, a group of convicted sex offenders argued that the
law placed them in double jeopardy, in violation of the 5th Amendment,
because it punishes them more than once for the same crime. After serving
their sentences, the men argued, they again were punished by the
notification and the public's reaction.

Challenges to other community-notification laws are expected to rest on
other constitutional provisions, including the right to privacy.