JUSTICES BACK JUDGES ON HARSHER SENTENCES

WASHINGTON -(AP) The Supreme Court on Monday upheld judges' authority to
give harsher prison sentences to defendants who use firearms in their crimes
or do other things that lawmakers have spelled out as especially dangerous.

The 5-4 decision protects sentencing practices in federal courts and every
state that had been put in doubt by an earlier court ruling.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said whether the convicted drug dealer in this
case brandished a gun ``need not be alleged in the indictment, submitted to
the jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.''

At issue was the way judges evaluate factors that establish a minimum
sentence.

''Facts that trigger an increased mandatory minimum sentence warrant
constitutional safeguards,'' wrote conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a
dissent, joined by liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who often votes with court liberals, joined the
majority in part of the decision, but at the same time wrote separately to
question the logic of minimum sentences.

Prosecutors win convictions for crimes such as drug dealing, then ask a
judge to determine sentences using factors such as the type of drug involved
in a crime or the use of a weapon. Judges use a lesser proof standard than
juries.

In the case being considered, justices upheld the seven-year prison sentence
given to William Joseph Harris, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling
marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. During the sale, he was
wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice at the store.

Because of the weapon, a judge said Harris also was guilty of brandishing a
gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the Congress-mandated
sentence of seven years in prison.

The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that allegations that bring harsher
penalties must be put in an indictment and proven to a jury if they would
lengthen the sentence.

Justices settled two follow-up cases Monday. In the other one, the court
ruled 7-2 that juries, not judges, must weigh the factors that go into
imposing the death penalty. Kennedy, Breyer and Justice Antonin Scalia sided
with the Arizona Death Row inmate, but not Harris.

In Harris, the majority drew a distinction between factors that increase the
maximum sentence a defendant can receive and those that increase the
minimum.

Also Monday, the court decided to hear a case this fall concerning whether
state workers can sue their agencies for denying time off to care for a sick
family member. The case could narrow the scope of the 1993 Family and
Medical Leave Act, which allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth
or adoption of a child, or to tend to a personal or family illness.

The case concerns a former employee of the Nevada state welfare department,
who was fired after his bosses said he overstayed a leave while caring for
his ailing wife.

William Hibbs claims he still had time coming to him under the 1993 law, but
the state disputes it.