OLD SENTENCES HINGE ON GUN CASE

Court Ruling Could Affect Judges' Power, Prison Term Guidelines

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court waded Monday into a gun case mindful that
it could affect the prison sentences of thousands of inmates.

Justices are reviewing the seven-year prison sentence given a former pawn
shop operator to decide if sentencings in federal weapons cases have been
handled properly. Prosecutors in two dozen states are worried that the
eventual ruling could strike down their sentencing arrangements.

The issue for the court is whether prosecutors have to convince a jury --
not just a judge -- that a defendant's wrongdoing involved guns.

The ruling in the gun case and a related drug case being argued next month
involve sentences in which judges acted alone to make determinations that
affect the sentence.

In this case, William Joseph Harris pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling
marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. During the sales, he was
wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice while at work.

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

Federal public defender William C. Ingram, representing Harris, said the
court may be faced with overturning multiple sentences. "If the
Constitution demands it, so be it," he said.

Harris' appeal requires the Supreme Court to revisit its 2000 ruling that
overturned a New Jersey man's sentence for a hate crime.

In that case, justices said a jury should have decided if Charles Apprendi
was motivated by bias when he fired shots into the home of a black family.
Apprendi, who is white, got a longer sentence because a judge ruled it was
a hate crime.

Defense attorneys contend that the Apprendi ruling applies not just to hate
crimes but a range of other cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly said Monday he opposed the ruling at the
time.

"I think Apprendi was not right, but still there it is," Breyer said.

Michael R. Dreeben, arguing for the Justice Department, said if the
government loses, it will have to revise the way it handles prosecutions.
In addition, states may have constitutional problems with their sentencing
guidelines, he said.

The constitutional question in the Harris case turns on a defendant's right
to trial by a jury. Juries decide beyond a reasonable doubt if there was a
crime. Judges use a lesser standard of proof.

New Jersey Attorney General David Samson told the court in a filing that
the Apprendi ruling has been cited in 2,700 federal and state appeals.
Samson said if the court goes even farther, thousands of inmates will
"inundate the state and federal court dockets demanding early release."

Samson filed the brief on behalf of 24 states and the Virgin Islands. He
said every state has some type of mandatory minimum sentencing arrangement.

Besides New Jersey, the states are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Stanford law professor George Fisher said if Harris wins, it "would be an
enormous windfall to many defendants."

"The court has itself in a box. It's very difficult to predict how they'll
get out of it," George Washington University law professor Stephen A.
Saltzburg said.

The cases are Harris v. United States, 00-10666 and United States v.
Cotton, 01-687.