cannabisnews.com: Legal Experts Debate Court Decision's Effect Legal Experts Debate Court Decision's Effect Posted by CN Staff on January 12, 2005 at 21:18:25 PT By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer Source: Washington Post Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on federal sentencing had been keenly awaited for months because it was expected to resolve questions that had put cases on hold throughout the federal system. But it is still unclear how it will affect that system.Legal experts acknowledged that the court's decision -- which said that federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, but only advisory -- could have far-reaching implications, but they also said it is possible that not much will change as a result. Prosecutors and defense lawyers saw a variety of possibilities. Unhappy prosecutors said judges who had felt constrained by the guidelines will now shorten many sentences. At least one federal judge agreed. Other lawyers said they fear wide disparities in sentencing nationwide -- the problem the sentencing guidelines were designed to eliminate.Defense lawyers, who were more heartened by the ruling, predicted a flood of appeals from defendants seeking to challenge their sentences.Yet legal experts pointed out that judges have grown accustomed to relying on the guidelines and still must use them in an advisory way when meting out punishment."This is the most significant federal criminal law decision to come down in many years, but to the extent that courts will use what has been ingrained in them, there may be little change," said James A. Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University in New York City."I think in the mainstream of cases, with the mainstream of judges, you're probably not going to see much change in sentences," he said, "though you may see some more leniency."In its twin majority opinions, the court declared unconstitutional key portions of the complex system used to sentence criminal defendants. The ruling essentially restored the system that was in place before the guidelines were established in the 1980s. That system allowed judges to sentence defendants up to the statutory maximum.The urgency behind yesterday's ruling lay in an earlier Supreme Court decision. Last June, in a 5 to 4 decision, the court ruled that Washington state's sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional.That decision created turmoil in federal courts nationwide. As lawyers waited for the Supreme Court to clarify whether it applied to the federal guidelines as well, prosecutors rushed to change indictments and plea bargains ground to a halt in many districts. Defense lawyers flooded U.S. district courts with requests for new and reduced sentences. Some judges issued two sentences -- one in case the guidelines were overturned.Yesterday's ruling is likely to smooth the system's day-to-day operations, at least in the short term, lawyers said. But it remains unclear what will happen after that. The Justice Department issued a statement saying it is "disappointed" by the rulings and urged judges to continue to follow the sentencing guidelines.Some legal observers predicted that Congress will intervene and rewrite the sentencing laws to conform to yesterday's opinion. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he will review the decisions and "work to establish a sentencing method that will be appropriately tough on career criminals, fair and consistent with constitutional requirements."Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who has been deeply involved in sentencing issues, said in a statement that it is too soon to tell "whether the Court's interim advisory guidelines will be appropriate in the long run.""The ball is now in Congress's court," he concluded.Without congressional intervention, one federal judge predicted in an interview that U.S. district judges are likely to give the majority of defendants lesser sentences than before. The judge spoke on the condition of anonymity because judicial ethics generally prevent judges from speaking to the media.One federal prosecutor agreed, saying some judges have indicated displeasure with the guidelines' constraints."There's not a lot we can do about it," said the prosecutor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not speaking officially for the Justice Department. "We will largely have to beat our brains out to get convictions and then throw up our hands at sentencing."One federal judge who publicly expressed her displeasure was Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria. Last summer, when the guidelines required her to impose a life sentence on one member of an alleged "Virginia jihad network" and an 85-year term on another, Brinkema called her own ruling "appalling" and said she had sentenced al Qaeda terrorists to far less time.John K. Zwerling, the attorney for one of the defendants, said yesterday that his client and two other defendants have already challenged their sentences. He said yesterday's ruling will vastly increase their chances."There are a lot of defendants in the pipeline who will receive huge benefits from this decision," Zwerling said. "We're just hoping that the federal system will become more humane."Complete Title: Legal Experts Debate Court Decision's Effect on Federal System Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, January 13, 2005; Page A12 Copyright: 2005 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles:Judges Are Not Bound by Sentencing Ruleshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20118.shtmlFederal Sentencing Guidelines Not Mandatoryhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20117.shtmlCourt Orders Changes in Sentencinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20116.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by FoM on January 14, 2005 at 09:32:24 PT BigDawg Exactly my thoughts too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by BigDawg on January 14, 2005 at 05:16:41 PT Exactly FOM That's all I have ever asked.Until I do something that brings harm to others... leave me be. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 13, 2005 at 08:48:34 PT NIDA Study All I want out of life is to be able to say at the end that I did it my way. Is that so wrong? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 13, 2005 at 08:24:17 PT BigDawg I just saw the man who lost his family in the mudslide in an interview on MSNBC. It made me cry. Obviously he is a cannabis person and what a wonderful heart he has. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by BigDawg on January 13, 2005 at 08:04:46 PT Respiratory problems Air pollution causes respiratory problems. Are they going to arrest the factory owners... or the legislators who let them pollute?How about mold and pollen. Those both cause me serious respiratory probs.Next up for arrest... God. It's all his fault.GGGGGI just heard a news brief on NPR about people living in the mudslide area of Cali. The question was raised about why the gov't doesn't stop people from living there. The legislator who responded said it was about adults making adult decisions. They know the risk. It isn't the gov'ts job to stop adults from making such a risk assessment and making their own choice.But when it comes to minor health risks from smoking cannabis... we are not allowed to make such choices. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by The GCW on January 13, 2005 at 04:30:34 PT Next study: Study and report the risks of being put in a cage for using a plant.Does the cage cause ill effects?What are they?Would harm be reduced if humans stoped caging humans for using something said to be good on the very 1st page of the Bible?The problem is that humans are not obeying Jesus Christ's request that We love one another.Love one another and the harms associated with caging humans for using what is good, go way down.Of course NIDA / being a part of -separation of church and state- is separated by mandate from loving anyone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by mayan on January 13, 2005 at 04:03:54 PT Bunk Study From the NIDA press release...Seventy seven percent of marijuana smokers also smoked tobacco.What kind of half-ass study was this? Everyone already knows that inhaling any kind of smoke is bad for you. Why doesn't NIDA fund a study on people who use vaporizors or people who ingest cannabis in food? Because NIDA wouldn't get the damning results they want.NIDA sucks and blows simultaneously. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by lombar on January 13, 2005 at 00:54:00 PT About The NIDA Press Release What jumps out at me is that a psychiatrist is studying a physiological effect. They are generally concerned with cognition, mentality and effects upon the brain, not the rest of the body. He talks about the ill effects upon the lungs then the supposed burden upon the health system NOT the effects upon the brain. I suppose I could see him for some asthma meds, decidedly not therapy. These results are from a survey...whoopdedoo!!! Where's a real study with pathological information? Where is the hard science??? People who smoke more get more respiratory problems...it takes a study to find that out??? As a former cigarette smoker, I can definitely attest to the fact that if you smoke 20 grams of tobacco every day, you will have more respiratory difficulties. If you do it for 40 years, you will likely get COPD in your old age. Give them some credit...if you smoke pot, you should really quit smoking tobbacco!!! ;) Q: Whats a four letter word for PROPAGANDA? A: NIDA [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 12, 2005 at 21:59:19 PT DPFCA: HI Report on Medical MJ Distribution http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts04/medmari.pdf [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 12, 2005 at 21:44:03 PT About The NIDA Press Release Even if it did cause problems like tobacco we don't put tobacco smokers in JAIL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 12, 2005 at 21:40:39 PT Press Release from NIDA Public release date: 13-Jan-2005Marijuana Associated with Same Respiratory Symptoms as TobaccoNew Haven, Conn.--Smoking marijuana is associated with increased risk of many of the same symptoms as smoking cigarettes--chronic bronchitis, coughing on most days, phlegm production, shortness of breath, and wheezing, according to a Yale study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. In addition, marijuana smoking may increase risk of respiratory exposure by infectious organisms, such as fungi and molds, since cannabis plants are contaminated with a range of fungal spores, said Brent Moore, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine and lead author of the study. "Because more than two million adult Americans are heavy marijuana smokers, these risks represent a potentially large health burden," Moore said. "Marijuana smokers use more medical services for respiratory problems, and these demands are likely to increase as the population of heavy marijuana smokers ages." The findings were based on 6,728 questionnaires completed by adult men and women, 20 to 59 years old, in 1988 and 1994. The data was from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and was thought to provide the broadest snapshot to date of marijuana use and its effect on the lungs in a sample of U.S. citizens. Current marijuana use was defined as self-reported lifetime use and use at least one day in the prior month. Seventy seven percent of marijuana smokers also smoked tobacco. The analysis statistically controlled for the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Individuals who smoked both marijuana and tobacco had increased rates of respiratory symptoms compared to those who smoked tobacco only. "Our interest is in the additive effect of marijuana," Moore said. ###The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Citation: Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2005 Issue Contact: Jacqueline Weaver jacqueline.weaver yale.edu 203-432-8555 Yale University http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/yu-maw011205.php [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 12, 2005 at 21:31:43 PT Two Related Articles from The LA Times Experts Ponder Impact of Court's Sentencing Ruling:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-impact13jan13,0,7684164.story?coll=la-home-headlines***Supreme Court Gives Judges Greater Sentencing Flexibility:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus13jan13,0,6163068.story?coll=la-home-headlines [ Post Comment ] Post Comment