3 ms·

I had the same question so I did some digging. Here's some relevant excerpts from the decision from the US Court of Appeals: > A district court may consider a

I had the same question so I did some digging. Here's some relevant excerpts from the decision from the US Court of Appeals: > A district court may consider as part of its sentencing determination uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence as long as that conduct does not increase either the statutory minimum or maximum available punishment. > ... > Here, the six drug-related deaths (and more importantly, Ulbricht's attempted murders for hire) were uncharged facts that did not increase either the statutory twenty-year minimum or the maximum life sentence applicable to the crimes of which he was found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the jury. [1] And later: > Thus, even without considering that enhancement, the drug convictions yielded an offense level of 48, which is higher than the maximum offense level recognized by the Guidelines, for which a sentence of life imprisonment is recommended even for someone who, like Ulbricht, has no prior criminal convictions. > ... > Accordingly, while a life sentence for selling drugs alone would give pause, we would be hard put to find such a sentence beyond the bounds of reason for drug crimes of this magnitude.[67] But the facts of this case involve much more than simply facilitating the sale of narcotics. [2] To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Had evidence to those things not been presented at trial, it's possible (probable?) that his sentence would have been shorter. Personally, this seems problematic as while it doesn't technically increase the sentencing maximum, it allows the judge to bypass the jury to determine guilt on certain facts. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p128 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365...

dragonwriter 6y ago
A couple minor issues with the summary, as there is some confusion of sentencing guideline ranges and statutory ranges for the particular offenses: > To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. Correct. > However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated: Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it. Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.

dragonwriter 6y ago

A couple minor issues with the summary, as there is some confusion of sentencing guideline ranges and statutory ranges for the particular offenses: > To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. Correct. > However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated: Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it. Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.