SENTENCING RULING'S IMPACT UNCLEAR

Mandatory Application of Guidelines Being Struck Down by High Court Is
Mixed Bag for Defendants, Say Attorneys.

SCRANTON - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that impacts how federal judges
impose sentences could be a double-edged sword for defendants, with
some benefiting and others facing harsher sentences, several area
defense attorneys said.

The nation's high court struck down last week the mandatory
application of sentencing guidelines. Federal judges must still
consider guidelines, the court said, but they can now use their
discretion in deciding whether to apply them to a particular defendant.

The ruling will impact all cases pending before U.S. district courts
across the nation, but will not necessarily result in a rash of
appeals to reopen cases, said attorney Phillip Gelso of Wilkes-Barre,
who handles many federal cases.

Gelso said the Supreme Court tailored its ruling to impact only
current cases or cases that are currently on appeal before the various
federal circuit courts. Cases that have already been decided on appeal
by a circuit court are not affected.

Martin Carlson, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, said the ruling is not expected to dramatically
impact the office's operation.

Carlson said the guidelines now are advisory, but his office will
encourage judges to voluntarily abide by them.

Joseph Cosgrove, a Forty Fort attorney, said he believes the ruling
ultimately will lead to fairer - but not necessarily lighter - sentences.

Defense attorneys have long criticized federal guidelines because they
precluded judges from taking into consideration mitigating factors in
a person's background that might reduce a sentence.

The only requirement is that the sentence be "reasonable," Cosgrove
said.

Gelso sees the ruling as a mixed blessing for defendants.

"It takes a level of certainty out of the system," Gelso
said.

Attorney Enid Harris said she's concerned about the uncertainties that
result from the high court ruling. She noted the dissent by Justice
Antonin Scalia, who predicted the change will create "chaos" in the
courts.

"There will be all sorts of unequal and disparate sentences depending
on the judges, which is what the mandatory guidelines were meant to
address," she said.