COURT REINSTATES JUDGES' POWERS ON DRUG SENTENCING

A federal appeals court on Friday wiped a controversial ruling off the
books that had thrown federal drug prosecutions across the West into
chaos, restoring sentencing powers that have been considered one of
the Justice Department's strongest weapons against major drug
traffickers.

In an 8-3 decision, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the
constitutionality of Congress's 1984 sentencing scheme for drug
traffickers, a ruling with implications for thousands of drug cases in
California and eight other states within the appeals court's reach.

Friday's ruling overturned a 2-1 decision in August by a 9th Circuit
panel that invalidated the sentencing method, the principal means
federal prosecutors have used since the Reagan administration to
punish drug dealers. The 9th Circuit found that the law did not
improperly shift a jury's powers to judges.

The case has been considered so important that the U.S. attorneys from
all nine Western states intervened to get the August ruling
overturned. In court briefs, the U.S. Justice Department warned that
the ruling jeopardized the ability to prosecute major drug traffickers
and threatened to "invalidate countless sentences and will result in
a deluge of litigation" in the federal courts.

Since the ruling, defendants in federal courts across California and
elsewhere have used the August ruling to either argue for lesser
sentences or to overturn sentences on appeal. The controversy stemmed
from the Seattle prosecution of convicted methamphetamine dealer
Calvin Buckland, who appealed his 27-year prison sentence to the 9th
Circuit.

Federal drug laws have relied heavily on sentencing defendants based
on the amount of drugs involved in a case, but the 9th Circuit's
August ruling found that approach unconstitutional. Among other
things, the panel struck down the 1984 law because it empowered a
judge, instead of a jury, to increase prison sentences based on
evidence introduced after trial about the amount of drugs associated
with a defendant. The law allowed judges to increase sentences beyond
the statutory maximum based on drug amounts.

However, a larger panel of the 9th Circuit on Friday disagreed, noting
that other federal appeals courts around the country -- interpreting a
2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling -- have upheld the laws.

"Our aim remains to give effect to Congress's intent," Judge Stephen
Trott wrote for the majority. "That intent is inherent: to ramp up
the punishment for controlled substance offenders based on the type
and amount of illegal substance involved in the case."

Three judges dissented, saying the ruling results in courts trying to
"jerry-build a sentencing scheme that Congress might or might not
have intended."

Defense lawyers expect the ruling to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, saying it failed to clarify the complex battle over how drug
defendants are sentenced.

"I think they've opened up a can of worms," said Barry Portman, the
Bay Area's chief federal public defender. "As a practical matter, I
don't think it solved anything. The Supreme Court is going to have to
handle this."