HIGH COURT ORDERS REVIEW OF SENTENCINGS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court asked federal courts Monday to reconsider
sentences for hundreds of defendants who contend they were wrongly punished
under a sentencing system the court declared unconstitutional earlier this
month.

Justices instructed the lower courts to review more than 400 appeals from
defendants sentenced for crimes ranging from drug possession to theft and
securities fraud. They had argued that judges had improperly boosted their
sentences based on factors that had not come before the jury during trial.

The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 12 that the federal guidelines violated a
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the 18-year-old
guidelines required judges to make factual decisions that affect prison
time, such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime or amount of money
involved in fraud.

Under the ruling, the guidelines are no longer mandatory but advisory; as a
result, federal judges are free to sentence convicted criminals as they see
fit, but they may be subject to reversal if appeals courts find them
"unreasonable."

In all, thousands of cases are expected to be reviewed by the lower courts
to determine whether the defendants were harshly punished. That will hinge
on what the appeals courts consider "reasonable" - for example, whether the
new advisory guidelines set a reasonable range or judges should have wider
leeway.

Among the cases the high court sent back to lower courts Monday was that of
Peter Kay Stern, a North Carolina man whose sentence for tax and bank fraud
was boosted from three years to 12 years by a judge.

"This court has clearly held that every defendant has the right to insist
that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the
punishment," Stern argued in his court filing.

In another case, pharmacist Robert Courtney contested his 30-year sentence
for diluting cancer drugs. (Courtney v. United States, 04-264.) Courtney,
of Kansas City, pleaded guilty to 20 counts of product tampering and
adulterating drugs meant for chemotherapy patients. Prosecutors have said
the scheme might have affected about 98,000 prescriptions for 4,200 patients.

Courtney's lawyers said prosecutors should have had a jury, not a judge,
decide factors that gave him a longer sentence, including whether
Courtney's actions caused psychological injuries.

"A defendant subject to the federal sentencing guidelines should only be
held accountable if the factual record proves that a departure is
warranted. The psychological injuries were not proven," Courtney argued.