Nemesis
03-10-2005, 02:27 AM
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
By BUFFY SPENCER
bspencer@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD - Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting federal judges' sentencing powers provides a safeguard for defendants, said Linda J. Thompson, a Springfield lawyer, who argued the case before the nation's highest court.
The court ruled 5-3 that police reports and other unproved evidence from previous cases cannot be used to add prison time when a defendant faces a new charge.
Thompson, who with husband John Thompson represented Reginald Shepard of Boston, argued the case in Washington, D.C., in November.
Shepard has an 18-year criminal history involving shoplifting, receiving stolen property and 11 convictions for breaking and entering, according to court papers.
In 1995, Shepard was arrested for selling a handgun to an undercover federal agent in Boston and indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, a federal violation carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in 1999.
But when sentencing came, Thompson said, the government wanted to roll up a string of offenses that Shepard had pleaded guilty to, extending his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act by a minimum five years or to life.
The sticking point, Thompson argued, is that Shepard pleaded guilty without a jury trial in proceedings that never included police reports, nor were any of the allegations adjudicated before a judge or jury. The tape recording of the court proceeding has been destroyed. She argued the police report is inadmissible because its accuracy was never tested in court.
At the time she said the argument was a "super technicality," and it meant that the court couldn't extend the sentences because there was no supporting documentation.
The court's ruling this week means that unless the record of a trial and conviction or a guilty plea proves that the prior conviction qualifies under the career criminal law that conviction cannot be held against the defendant. Courts may not rely on police reports or other independent investigations to prove the past conviction applies, she said.
Justice David H. Souter wrote that evidence such as police reports are "too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record" to be used in sentencing. http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1110358222303403.xml
By BUFFY SPENCER
bspencer@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD - Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting federal judges' sentencing powers provides a safeguard for defendants, said Linda J. Thompson, a Springfield lawyer, who argued the case before the nation's highest court.
The court ruled 5-3 that police reports and other unproved evidence from previous cases cannot be used to add prison time when a defendant faces a new charge.
Thompson, who with husband John Thompson represented Reginald Shepard of Boston, argued the case in Washington, D.C., in November.
Shepard has an 18-year criminal history involving shoplifting, receiving stolen property and 11 convictions for breaking and entering, according to court papers.
In 1995, Shepard was arrested for selling a handgun to an undercover federal agent in Boston and indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, a federal violation carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in 1999.
But when sentencing came, Thompson said, the government wanted to roll up a string of offenses that Shepard had pleaded guilty to, extending his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act by a minimum five years or to life.
The sticking point, Thompson argued, is that Shepard pleaded guilty without a jury trial in proceedings that never included police reports, nor were any of the allegations adjudicated before a judge or jury. The tape recording of the court proceeding has been destroyed. She argued the police report is inadmissible because its accuracy was never tested in court.
At the time she said the argument was a "super technicality," and it meant that the court couldn't extend the sentences because there was no supporting documentation.
The court's ruling this week means that unless the record of a trial and conviction or a guilty plea proves that the prior conviction qualifies under the career criminal law that conviction cannot be held against the defendant. Courts may not rely on police reports or other independent investigations to prove the past conviction applies, she said.
Justice David H. Souter wrote that evidence such as police reports are "too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record" to be used in sentencing. http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1110358222303403.xml