SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW SENTENCING GUIDELINES

Shirley Maye Rollow would have been better off if she had never taken
the witness stand. Rollow, 55, testified in her own defense to federal
charges of possessing and distributing pseudoephedrine for making
methamphetamine. An Oklahoma City jury found her guilty in October
2002 of nine felony counts.

Had Rollow been sentenced on just those convictions, federal
guidelines would have recommended a sentence of 10 to 16 months in
prison, said her attorney, Bill Zuhdi.

But Rollow was sentenced to 15 years when a judge added prison time
because of enhancements that were never proved to a jury. One of those
enhancements: "obstruction of justice" for allegedly giving untrue
testimony.

Monday, members of the U.S. Supreme Court will return to the bench and
begin deciding whether enhancements such as those added to Rollow's
sentence violate the U.S. Constitution.

At stake is the fate of thousands of federal inmates and defendants,
including dozens convicted or awaiting sentencing in Oklahoma.

'Socked with enhancements' Rollow exercised her right to testify and
was then punished for perjury without a formal trial, Zuhdi said,
adding that the jury never concluded she was lying or obstructing justice.

"She wasn't charged with testifying falsely or perjury," Zuhdi said.
"She never had a chance to defend herself against it, and then she
gets socked with this enhancement."

Her sentence was further boosted by the amount of pseudoephedrine and
because she reportedly functioned as a "leader and organizer" of the
crime, even though a jury had never considered the
enhancements.

U.S. Attorney Robert G. McCampbell, head federal prosecutor in
Oklahoma City, noted that a jury found Rollow guilty of the underlying
crime before she was sentenced.

During sentencing both sides have a chance to present evidence on the
enhancements and have the right to object before a decision is
rendered by a judge.

"There's due process," McCampbell said. "There's a hearing and both
sides can put on evidence."

In Rollow's case, a judge found a preponderance of the evidence
indicated the enhancements occurred. The standard is much lower than
the "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed for a guilty verdict in a trial.

"There's no jury there," Zuhdi said. "She's denied a jury trial and
that's the way it is with all federal enhancements."

Tough sentencing laws struck down The Supreme Court called into
question Rollow's sentence and that of thousands of others this summer
when it struck down tough sentencing laws in Washington state.

The court's 5 to 4 ruling in Blakely v. Washington said any factor,
other than a prior conviction, that increases a criminal sentence must
be admitted to by the defendant in a plea deal or proved to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although the court said it wasn't expressing an opinion on similar
federal sentencing guidelines, the ruling had an immediate impact on
the federal courts.

Federal prosecutors were thrown into the position of defending two
decades worth of federal guidelines.

The guidelines meet constitutional muster and are much fairer than the
previous system, McCampbell said.

"One of the key advantages to the guideline system is transparency,"
said McCampbell, who is chairman of the U.S. Attorney General's
Advisory Committee's Sentencing Guidelines Subcommittee.

"Before the guidelines, two similarly situated defendants in two
different courtrooms could receive two different sentences and no one
knew why," he said.

Decision becomes basis for appeals In the federal Western District of
Oklahoma Court in Oklahoma City, more than a dozen prisoners have
cited Blakely as a basis for new appeals.

When the Blakely decision was handed down, about 8,000 cases were
pending appeal on sentencing issues and more than 50,000 cases awaited
sentencing in district courts.

Since the Blakely ruling, federal judges in Oklahoma City have
sentenced 72 defendants. In most cases the judge's primary sentence
followed the guidelines.

"I have consistently ruled that until the Supreme Court finds the
guidelines unconstitutional, I'm not going to do so," U.S. District
Judge David L. Russell said last week. "That would be
presumptuous."

Russell then sentenced Jermaine Dion Washington to prison for eight
years and nine months for taking a 12-year-old girl to Denver so she
could work as a prostitute. Washington's sentence included about four
years for enhancements such as the threat of violence.

Russell said if the Supreme Court decides all federal guidelines are
unconstitutional and sentencing is up to the judge's discretion, he
would give Washington 15 years in prison.

Russell's optional sentence made the point that the guidelines don't
always hurt defendants.

"That deal can cut both ways depending on the case," said Washington's
attorney, Joseph G. Shannonhouse.

If Blakely applies to federal guidelines, courts could be facing
thousands of cases to reconsider, said private defense attorney David
Henry.

"It's likely they'll all be brought back to be resentenced," Henry
said. "Some might be released because there's going to be sentences
that are so low without the enhancements that they've already served
their prison time."