EFFECT OF SENTENCING CHANGE UNKNOWN

Guidelines Now 'Advisory' In Nature

The chief of the Midland U.S. Attorney's office said it may be some
time before those in the law system understand the ramifications of
Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to alter federal sentencing guidelines.

"We work hundreds of cases through the system a year, and what does
this mean? We don't know yet," he said. "Judges, prosecutors and
defense attorneys will be studying this over the next few weeks to see
how it affects us or how it'll change the sentencing procedure. So, we
don't know the answer to that yet."

The court found in the United States v. Booker and United States v.
Fanfan that portions of the sentencing guidelines were
unconstitutional. In ordering changes, the court found 5-4 that judges
have been improperly adding time to some criminals' prison stays. The
high court stopped short of scrapping the nearly two-decade-old
guideline system, intended to make sure sentences don't vary widely
from courtroom to courtroom.

"It's a very complex opinion," Klassen said.

The court said in the second half of a two-part ruling that judges
should consult the guidelines in determining reasonable sentences -
but only on an advisory basis.

"The guidelines are now advisory in nature," Assistant U.S. Attorney
John Klassen, chief of the Midland U.S. Attorney's office, said. "The
judge has to take them into account, but he is not bound by law to
follow them anymore."

Before Wednesday, judges were required to consider, for instance,
whether someone was a key leader or organizer in a drug case, or in an
embezzlement case, whether the suspect was in a position of trust,
Klassen said. If the judge found that, time was automatically added.

"Before for the judge it was mandatory to consider those," Klassen
said. "The Supreme Court struck that down. They said it's a jury
issue. They said, as long as it's not mandatory, the judge has
discretion to make those findings."