JUDGE TESTS LIMITS OF NEW FEDERAL SENTENCING PLAN

The shackles came off in U.S. District Court in Knoxville on Wednesday, but
it wasn't a defendant who was set free.

It was the judge.

With the ink still wet on a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that
said judges are no longer bound by federal sentencing guidelines, Senior
Federal Judge James H. Jarvis put it into practice.

Travis Jeffries, a 22-year-old crack dealer, faced a minimum of 121 months
behind bars under those guidelines. Jarvis cut the term in half, ruling
Jeffries should only serve 60 months in a federal prison.

Until Wednesday, Jarvis would have been hard-pressed to exercise that kind
of judicial discretion. Prosecutors and defense attorneys differ over
whether his newfound freedom is a good thing.

The breakthrough comes courtesy of two court rulings.

The first was a June 24 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that sent
shockwaves throughout the nation's judicial system. In that case, known as
the Blakely decision, the high court ruled that a jury - not a judge -
should decide whether someone is guilty of conduct used to pump up punishment.

That decision directly impacted the way criminals in Washington are
sentenced because the defendant in the case, Ralph H. Blakely Jr., was
convicted in that state.

But a furor immediately arose over whether that ruling affected the way
criminals are sentenced in the federal court system and what, if any,
effect it had on states with sentencing procedures similar to those in
Washington.

Tennessee is among those states that use a similar sentencing scheme. So
far, however, the jury is still out on what the decision will mean here.

Federal appellate courts across the nation began wading into the fray
within days. One said the Blakely decision was much ado about nothing for
federal courts. Another opined that it was significant. Yet a third
complained the issue was just too fuzzy and beseeched the Supreme Court to
directly tackle the question of whether the federal sentencing scheme was
unconstitutional.

None of those appellate courts, however, had jurisdiction over the federal
system in Tennessee.

Then, on Wednesday, the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, which rules on cases
in Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan, weighed in on a case of its own,
known as the Montgomery decision. In that case, the court said that Blakely
applies directly to federal courts in the district.

In their opinion, the appellate court wrote that federal sentencing
guidelines put into place in 1987 were not guidelines at all. Instead, the
court said, the guidelines in practice were made mandatory. The decision
was rendered by three of the nine-member panel.

Under the federal sentencing scheme, a defendant's range of possible
punishments was reduced to a mathematical formula.

Nasty criminal history? Up the sentencing ladder you climbed. The more
drugs that a prosecutor could convince a judge you sold, the higher your
penalty range. Were you the leader of your pack? More prison time awaited you.

Youth could slide you down the scale. Snitching on your partners also
slipped you down a rung or two. Confession, too, was not only good for the
soul but worth a sentencing break.

In the end, a judge was left with a narrow path of punishment - a minimum
and a maximum typically separated by a few years. A federal judge could go
out on a sentencing limb and ignore the guideline range, but the decision
would invariably be appealed and likely reversed.

The Blakely decision, the appellate court said, changed all that.

"In light of Blakely a district judge should no longer view herself (or
himself) as operating a mandatory or determinate sentencing system but
rather should view the guidelines in general as recommendations to be
considered," the court wrote.

Defense attorneys lauded the decision.

"Federal judges are now free to do what they could do only in rare
instances (before)," said Knoxville attorney David Eldridge.

Federal Defender Paula Voss, who represented Jeffries and became the first
defense attorney to use Wednesday's decision, called it a "healthy
re-evaluation" of the way sentences are meted out.

Defense attorney Tom Dillard said both decisions right a sentencing
structure that had gone wrong.

"The guidelines should be guidelines," he said. "They shouldn't be set in
stone."

Prosecutors had a far different view. Although representatives of the U.S.
Attorney's Office could not be reached for immediate comment, federal
prosecutors already had been advised by the U.S. Department of Justice to
start taking steps to stave off any impact from the Blakely decision.

The justice department has staunchly defended the federal guidelines,
arguing the scheme restored fairness to the system, ensured that punishment
fit the crime and made good common sense, punishing criminal leaders and
repeat offenders more harshly.

Both sides agree, however, that the nation's high court should weigh in -
and soon - on whether it intended to change the face of the federal
sentencing scheme with its Blakely decision.