## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 1196 , 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ON B ART LET T, A NDR EW R. S PENGLER, a nd D ANIEL M ASA RIK, D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06- CR-273

— C.N. Clevert,Jr. , Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 8, 2009

Befo re E A S T ER BROO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . The dist ance between ci vi l i zati o n a nd b arba r i ty, a nd the t i m e ne eded to pa ss fr o m o ne state to the o th er, i s d ep ressingly short. Poli ce offi cers i n M i l w aukee pro ved thi s the m or ni ng o fOctobe r 24, 20 04. A nd re w S pengl erh el d a house w ar m i ng par ty that sta rt ed on October23 and l ast ed i nto the ne xt m orni ng. Spengl erand m any guests were pol i ce o ffi cers. Li quor2 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 fl ow ed freely. K atie Brow n a n d K irsten A nt onissen w ere am ong the invi tees. T h ey ar ri ved after2: 30 AMo n October24 with F ra nk J ud e and Lovel lH ar ri s. The quart et was i m m edi at ely m ade t o fee lunwe l co m e be ca us e th e w om en ar e white , and the m en ar e no t. ( H ar ri s describes hi m sel fas bl ack; J ud e desc ribes hi m sel fas bi- ra ci al
. ) A fter fi ve m i nutes, the f our prepar ed to l eave

—bu t the y w ere p reven ted w he n at least ten m en storm ed outs ide, surro und ed A ntoni sse n’s t ruck, and dem anded to kno w w ha t the f ou r n ew arri vals had don e w ith Sp en gler’ s ba dge
. S pen g l ers ay s th athe c o ul d not fi nd i t afte rthe quarte t a rr i ved, and he a ccused them o ft h eft . Th e m en dem anded thatthe f our geto ut of the t ruck and surr ender the b adge. W hen theyst aye d in si de, the m en thr eat ened them ( “N i gge r, we can k illyo u”) and beg an to vandal i ze the t ruck. H ar ris tr i ed to wake the nei ghbor s; the m en re sp on d ed : “N igg er , sh u t u p , i t’s ou r w or ld .” E ve n tu ally all fou r w e r e d ra gg ed from th e t ru c k. A se ar chdi d no t tu r n up th e ba dge
. Ins tead o fc o nc l udi ng th at S pengl er ’ s a ccusati on was m i sta ken, the m en be ca m e enraged and v i o l en t. One c utHar r i s’ s f ac e i n a w ay th ath e d es c rib ed as “ slo w an d d em en te d .” H ar ris m anage d to fre e him se l fand run a w ay. M ult i ple m en bega n to ki ck and pu nch J ud e. A nt oni sse n m anage d to c all 911; she tol d the o perat or“they’ re bea ti ng the sh it o uto f h im
. ” W he n the men s aw Anto ni ss enus e th e phone, theywreste d i t fro m herh and and fl ung her a g a i ns tthe t r uc ks o f o r c e ful l y tha ti t s me t a lwas de nt e d. Brown m ade two cal l s t o 911 bef or e herphone, to o, was s e i z e d.N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 3 Th e fi r s tc a l lwas l o g g e d a t2: 4 8 , an d t wo o ffi c e r s (J o s e ph S ch ab ela nd Ni co le Mar tine z) a r r i ve d a t 3: 00
. The beat i ng co nti nue d u nti lthei r appearance . M en punched J ud e’ s f ace and tor so; wh en he fell to the gr ound, they ki cked hi s hea d and thighs. The partygo er s be haved as a m o b. Nota s i ngl e per so n in the ho us e tr i ed to s to p the att ac k or ev en to cal lf orai d. J on Cl ausi ng, wh o had sl as he d Har r i s’ s f ac e, e xpl ained hi s co nduc t as “j us t k i nd o fg o i nga l o ngwi the ve r ybo dy. ” Tha t i s th e way o fthe m o b
. S o c i e t y h a s p o l i c e f o r c e s t o p o s e a c o u n t e r we i g ht to m obs , ye t her e the pol i ce b ecam e a m ob. Sch ab e la nd Mar t i ne z we r e o n du t y a nd h a d n o tb een dri nki ng, so theysho uld have put a sto p to th e v i ol ence. I nstea d S c hab e lj o i ne d i t, wh i l e Mar t i ne z wa t c he d. On bei ng to l d that Ju de had sto l en S pengl er ’ s ba dge, S chabel cal l ed J ud e a “m othe rfucker ” a nd st om ped on hi s f ace unt i lo th er s co uld he arb o ne s br ea k i ng . Af te rt el l i ng M ar ti nez “ I ’ m r eal l y s or ryyo u have to se e th i s, ” Dani el M as ar i k pi ck ed J ude o ff th e g r o und an d k i ck ed hi m i n the crot ch so har d that hi s bo dy l eft the gr ound. J on Bar tl ett then t oo k o ne o fS chabel ’ s pens and press ed i t into each o f J ude ’ s ea rc an al s, c au sings ev er e i nj ur y a nd e xc r uci at i ng pain. The men al so br o k e t wo ofJ ude ’ s fi ng er s byb en di ng them bac k unti ltheysnapped. Spen gle r pu t a gun t o J ud e ’ s h e a d a nd s a i d: “ I ’ m t he fuc k i ngpol i ce. I c a n do wha t e v e rIwant to do
. Ic o ul d k i l ly o u. ” Ba r t l e t tu s e d a kn ife t o c u t o ff Ju d e’s j ac ke t a n d p a n t s , lea vin g h im na k e d o n the s t r e e ti n a p o o lo fh i s o wn b l o o d. The vi ol ence taper ed offwh en addit i onalo n-duty pol i ce ar ri ved. A t 3 :09 offi cer s a rr est ed J ud e. Yes, theyar re ste d4 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 the v i cti m , al though J ud e had neve r f ought back
. ( H e had su ffer ed a c on c u ss ion an d w as u n ab le t o d efe n d h im se l f .) J ude was t ak ent o a n e m er g en cyr o o m ; th e admi tt i ng physi ci an to ok photog ra phs because “[ t] here we re to o m any [ i nj uri es] to docum ent” i n w ri ti ng. The i nj u ries t o J ude ’ s ea r s co ul d notb e di agno se d b ec au se the physi ci ans co uld notco nt ro lthe bl eedi ng. One physi ci an tes ti fi ed that she had neve r see n ea r i nj uri es so seve re . W hile J ud e w as r e c e ivi ng treatm en t, on-d ut y officers re cove re d Jude’ s ca r. Bart l ettand other m en had r i pp ed up i ts sea ts w i th kni ves and poured antifree ze ove r th em; a ppar en tly the y pour ed a nt i fr ee ze i nt o the g as t an k t o o , da mag i ngthe e ng i ne . T he r a di o had b e e n wr e c k e d. T he m en broke a hea d li gh t and tore a m irr or off A n to n iss en ’s t ru c k. Sp en gle r ’ s b ad ge w as n otfou n d in ei th erthe c aro rthe t r uck; pe rha ps he ha d putdo wn th e b a dg e i n the ho us e a nd wa s t o o s o us e d t o r em em ber w here
. B a r t l et t, Sp en gle r, an d M as ar ik w er e p ro se c u te d in s t a t e c o u r ta n d a c q u i t t e d a ft e rS c h ab e la n d o th e r s c o mm i tte d pe rj ur y o n the i rb eh al f, whi l e m an y pe o pl e who had been a t the p ar ty cl ai m ed to sufferm em or y l oss . That m ade i t i m po ss ibl e to s ho w w ho had done what, a nd the j ud i ci alsy ste m ( unli ke a m ob) dem ands pers onal re sponsibi l i ty. The Civi l Rights Divi si on ofth e Just i ce D ep artm en t t h en i nv estigated , and fed eral prosec ut ors persuaded sev er alwitnes ses to coop erate
. Fo ur m en ( J o s e phS c hab e l, R y a n Le mke , J o n Cl a us i ng, a nd J o s e ph St ro m ei ) pl eaded gui l ty to ob structi on o fj usti ce (by perj ury, i ncl ud i ng f al se tes ti m ony bef or e the federal gr and j ury) , to vi ol ating H ar ri s’ s a nd J ud e’ s ci vi lr i ghts, o rN os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 5 both. Bart l ett, S pengl er, and M asar i k were c on victe d by a j ury ofco nspir i ng to vi ol ate H ar ri s’ s a nd J ud e’ s ri ght to be fr e e fr o m unre a s o nab l e s e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur e s ( 1 8 U. S
. C. §241 ), and of th e sub stan tive offens e (18 U
. S. C
. §242). ( Ex cess i ve f or ce in m aking an ar re st vi ol ate s the f ourth am endm ent t o the Constituti on, appli ed to st ate pol i ce offi cer s bythe f ourt eenth am endm ent. Se e Gr aham v. Connor, 49 0 U.S
. 38 6 ( 1989 )
. ) Bart l ettwas sente nced to 208 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, S pengl erand M asa ri k t o 18 8 m o nths a pi ec e. Al ls ev enmen h av e been fi r ed bythe M i l wauk ee Po l i ce . Two m ore o ffi ce r s wer e fi r ed but l a t e rr e i ns t a t e d; a n a ddi t i o na lf o urwe r e di s c i pl i ne d. Bartl ett, Spengl er, and M asar i k pr ese nt twel ve appell ate i ssues . Onlyf our re quir e di scu ssio n. The r esthave bee n consi dered, and w e r ej ect them witho ut co m m ent. 1. The m axi m um punishm en t for a vi ol ati on o fei ther §241 o r §242 i s 1 20 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. The l onge r sente nces that Bartl ett, S pengl er, and M asar i k r ecei ved depend o n co nvi cti ons ofbo th o ffenses . A l lthr ee conte nd thatth e evidence ofco nspir acy i s insuffi ci ent. Conspir acy i s a gr eem ent t o vi ol ate so m e o therl aw , se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Sh ab ani, 513 U.S
. 10 ( 1994 ) , and defendants m ain ta i n that eve nts deve l oped w i thout an ag re em ent. W h en Sp en gle r c alle d for aid to rec ov er h is b ad ge , pe op le r us he d fr o m the pa r tyt o Anto ni ss en ’ s truckwi th o ut p rior n eg ot iat ion or a gr ee m en t. T h i s per specti ve ass um es that the a gr eem ent m ust p r e d a t e th e fi r s ts u b s t a n t i v e o ffe n s e . Yet i tn e e d n o t
. An agr eem ent for ged i n the course o f com m i tting a cri m e, amongpe o pl e who pl an to wor kt o g ethe ri n a n o ng o i ng6 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 cri m i nalve nture, i s no l ess a conspi ra cy than o ne that prece des the fi rs t o ver t a ct. T h e batt er y o fJ ud e l ast ed f or 20 m i nutes. A re aso nabl e j ury coul d i nfe r that defe nd ants an d others form ed a plan to do w ha tever w as ne cess ary t o r e c o v e rS pe ng l e r ’ s b a dg e a nd p un i s h the thi ef

— a pla n car ri ed out thro ugh coo perat i ve cri m i nalact i vi ty. W or kin g t og et h er to co m m i t a s er ies of cr im in al a c ts , in w hi ch eac h c oo perat i ve act i m pli es a pl an to co oper ate i n the future, i s a functi onalundersta nd i ng o fco nspir acy. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le ch uga , 99 4 F
. 2d 346 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) (en ban c); U nite d States v. Wantuch , 52 5 F
. 3d 505, 51 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. None o fthe evi den ce s ug g es ts tha t defen dants worke d at c ro ss- purposes w i th ea ch o th er, o r w i th th e re st of th e m ob . Th e e vid en c e is en ou gh to p er m it an i nfe r e nc e o fa g r e e men ta nd thu s a c o nv i c t i o n f or conspi ra cy. 2. M as ar i kc o nt en ds th athe di d no t p artici pat e i n the beating. H e co ncedes that he w as at the par ty but sa ys th a th e s t a y e d i n d o o r s o ro n th e mo b ’ s p e r i p h e r y . He di d no t r epo r t th e cr i m e o ra ss i stthe prose cu ti o n, s o he m i ght ha ve been convi cted o fm i spri son offel ony, se e 18 U
. S. C. §4, but i fhe was a bys ta n d er h e di d not v i ol ate §241 o r §242
. Six w itn es se s t es tifie d th a t M as ar ik h eld Ju d e w h ile othe rs punched and ki cked hi m . S om e o ft h es e w i tness es testifi ed that M asar i k k i cked J ud e in the f ace at l eas t tw i ce, and that M asarik k icked Jude i n the cro tch ( after apol ogi zi ng to M ar ti nez)
. M asar i k c onte nd s that he m ust have been confused w i th so m eon e els e, and he pro posed to pres ent e xpert tes ti m ony about hi gh er ro r ra tes inN os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 7 ey ewi tn es s i den ti fi ca ti o ns . The di st r i ct co ur t ex cl ude d the pr o p o s e d t e s t i mo n y f o r t wo p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t, t he j ud ge sta ted thatj uror s co u ld d ete rm i ne the r el i abi l i ty of i denti fi cati ons usi ng the ev i dence fro m di re ct a nd cr oss exam i nati ons. S eco nd , the j ud ge i nvoke d Fed. R
. Evi d. 403, w h ic h a llow s t h e e x c lu sio n of ev id en c e t h at is n ee d les sly cum ula ti ve orwil lco nsum e t ri alt im e ou t o fpro port i on to i ts val ue. T h e firs t of th es e re as on s is w ea k. D ou b tle ss la w ye rs w ill ask que st i o ns de si g ne d t o a ss i stthe j ur o r s i n e va l ua ting w he the ra wi tne s s i s t e l l i ngthe t r uth. Bu tthe pro bl em wi the y ewitness te st i m o ny i s th atwi tn es se s who thi nk they ar e i denti fyi ng the wrongdoer

— w h o a re c r ed ible becau se the y b el i ev e ev ery wor d the y ut te ro n the st an d

— m ay be m ist ak en . Stud y after stud y has show n ve ry h igh err or rat es in th e id en tific at ion of st ra n ge rs . See , e.g., El i z abeth F. Loftus & Ja m es M
. Doyl e, Eye wit ne s s Te s t i m ony: Civi l an d Cr i m i nal ( 3d ed. 19 97) ( col l ecting stud i es) ; El i zabeth F. Loftus, Eye wit ne s s Te s t i m ony( 1979 ; rev. ed
. 1996); D an ielL. Schac ter, TheSe ve n S i ns of M e m ory: H o w t he M ind Fo rgets a nd R em em bers 1 12 –37 ( 20 01 )
. “ An i m po r ta nt bo dy o f psy ch o l o g i ca l r es ea r ch unde r m i ne s th e l ayi ntuiti on th at con fi d en t m em ories ofsali en t exp erience s . . . are acc ura te an d do n ot fade w ith tim e u n less a person ’s m em or y h as so m e pa th olo gic al i m p air m en t.
. . . T h e b as ic pr o bl em ab o utt es ti m o ny f r o m m emor y i s tha t m o stofo ur re col l ecti ons ar e no t v er i fi abl e. The o nl y warr ant forthem i s o ur c e r t i t ud e , a nd c e r t i t ud e i s no t a r e l i ab l e t e s t o f cer tainty. ” Kr i s tv . El iL i l l y & Co
. , 897 F. 2d 293, 29 6–97( 7th C ir. 1990) (ci tations to the sch olarl y l iterature om itted ).8 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 It w ill no t d o t o re p ly th at j u ro rs kn ow fr o m th eir d aily l i ves that m em or y i s f al l ibl e. The questi on that so c i al sci ence can add re ss is how fallib le, an d th u s h ow d ee p ly an y given iden tification sh ou ld be d iscoun ted
. Th at j urors have bel i efs about thi s doe s no t m ake exper t e vi dence i rr el evant; to the contrary , i t m ay m ake such e vi dence vi tal, f ori fj uror s’ bel i efs a re m i sta ken then theym ay re ac h inc or re c t c on c lu sio n s. E x p er t e vid en c e c an h elp j uror s e val uate w hetherthei r bel i ef s about the re l i abi l i ty of eyew it n e ss testim ony are cor re ct . M an y p eo p le believe that i d en tification s ex p ressed w ith certain ty are m o r e l i k ely t o b e co r r ec t; e vi den ce tha t th ere is no re l ati on be tw een c er ti tude and ac curacym ay have a pow er ful effect. St i l l, usi ng exper t t est i m ony to explo re thi s ques tio n m ay si de tr ack a t ri al
. A j ud ge m ust ba l ance the be nefi ts ofi l l um i nati ng ev i dence a ga i nst the co sts o fco l l ate ra l i nqui r i es . Tha t’ s why R ul e 40 3 g r an ts di sc r et i o n t o the tr i alj u d ge

— and w hy we have hel d, m any t i m es, thata tr i alc o ur t do es no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n b y excl udi ng ex p er t e vid en c e a b o u t t h e re liab ility of ey ew itn es s t es tim o n y . Se e, e.g ., U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 4 1 0 F
. 3 d 9 4 2 , 95 0 (7th C ir. 2005) (col lecting case s); U nite d State s v . H all , 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) (sam e). T h e d ist ric t jud ge d id n otab u se h is d isc re t i on in t h is case , bec ause the c onvi cti on does notr esto n i denti fi cations byJ ude a nd the o th erv i ct i m s. Onl y t wo o fthe p e o p l e w h o i d e n t i fi e d Ma s a r i k we r e s t r a n g e r s t o h i m. The other f our knew him well
. The so ci al

- sci ence studie s do n ot s u gge st that peopl e who have known o ne ano therN os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 9 f orweeks orye ar s a re apt t o err w hen i denti fyi ng the m i n c o ur t. W ha t’ s m o r e, the s ch o l ar l y wor kc o nc erns i denti fi cati on bys ingleey ew i tness es, notthe probabi l i ty o fe r r o rw h e n mu l t i p l e w i tn e s s e s i d e n t i fy th e s a me p erson . I f th e six i n-cou rt i d en tifications of M asarik w ere i nd ependent, and e ac h h ad a probabl e e rr orr ate o f
. 333 ( that i s, ther e i s a o n e-in -thre e chance thatany w i tness w as m i sta ken) , then the pr obab i l i ty th at M asar i k i s innoc e n t i s . 3 3 3 t o th e s i x th p o w e r, o r w e l l u n d e r 1 %
. We ha ve r emar k ed be f o r e th atthe s ch o l ar l y fi ndi ng s ab o ut eye w i tness es have onl y l i m i ted appli cati on wh en m ult i ple witnes ses i de n tify the sam e per son. S ee U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 522 F.3d 809 ( 7th Cir. 2008); Ne wsome v. M cCa be, 31 9 F .3d 3 01 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. M asar i k di d not p ro f f er an y e vid en c e a b ou t t h e e rro r ra te s in six -fold iden tifications. N or did he p rop ose to ask an exp ert w hetherthe si x i denti fi catio ns sho uld be r ega rded as i nd ependent, o r w hat the r isk ofer ro r i n thes e i denti fi cati ons tak en j oi ntl y i s a pt to be. S om eone wh o propos es expertte sti m ony m ust s how how the fi n d in gs apply to the l i ti gat i on a t hand; M asar i k di d not do thi s. A co n c u rrin g o p i n ion inHall added that, al though j uror s shoul d be m ade aware ofthe schol ar l y fi nd i ngs i n app ro pri ate cas es, i t i s o ften b ett erto have the j ud ge s um ma r i z e th e s t a t e o fkn o wl e d g e th a n t o h a v e a p a r a de o fe xpe r ts
. 1 65 F
. 3d at 11 20
. M as ar i kdi d no t as kthe j ud ge to re cap the schol ar l y fi nd i ngs f orj uror s’ bene fi t. Fo r hi m, i t wa s a n e x p e r t o n th e s t a n d o r i t wa s n o th i n g ; t he j u d ge d id n ot a b u se h is d isc re tio n in b loc kin g t h at te st im ony i n or der t o kee p thi s t ri alo n tr ack.10 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 3. A l lthr ee defe nd ants conte nd thatthei r sente nces ar e u n re as on ab ly h igh w h en ev alu at ed u n d er th e c rit er ia i n 18 U
. S. C. §355 3(a )
. They s tr ess §3 553( a) ( 6) , wh i ch re quir es a s entencing j ud ge to consi der “ the ne ed to avo id u n w ar ra n te d se n te n c e d isp ar itie s a m on g d efe nd ants w i th si m i l arreco rds w ho have bee n f ound gui l ty ofsi m i l ar c on d u c t” . L em ke , C lau sin g, Sc h ab el , an d Str om ei a ll re cei ved se ntences co nsi d er ab l y l ess than 188 m onths; B artlett, Sp en gler, and M asarik c ont en d that this d if

fer en ce make s th ei rs en te nc es unr ea so nabl y hi g h. W e hav e e ncounter ed thi s a rgum ent b ef or e a nd r ej ecte d i t. Ther e wo ul d b e c o ns i de r ab l y l e s s c o o pe r ati on

— a n d th u s mo r e c r i me

— i ftho se w ho a ssi st pros ecuto rs co uld notr ecei ve l ower s en te nces com pared to tho se w ho fi ght t o the l ast
. N ei ther [ U ni t e d S t at e s v. ] B o o k er [ , 54 3 U.S
. 22 0 ( 2005 ) ] nor §35 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) r e mov e s the i nc e nt i v e f o rc o o pe ra ti on

— and because thi s i ncenti ve tak es the for m o f a l ower s en tence f ora coo perat orthan f oran o the r wi s e - i de nt i c a lde fe nd a ntwh o do e s n o tc o o per ate , th e redu cti on ca nnot be i l l egi ti m ate
. A fter a l l, § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) d i s a l l o ws “u nw a rran tedse ntence dispari ti es” ( em phasi s a dd ed), notal lse ntence differ ences. [T ]h e k in d of “d isp ar ity ” w ith w h ich §3 55 3(a )(6) is concerne d i s a n unj usti fi ed differ ence acr oss j ud ges ( ordi stric ts ) r atherthan am ong defe nd ants to a single case . I f th e nat ional norm f or first offend ers w ho gain $275 , 000 or so by fra ud is a se ntenceN os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 11 i n the r a ng e o f3 3 t o 4 1 mo nths , the n s y s t e m- wi de se n te n c in g d isp ar ity w illincrea sei f B osca rino’s sente nce i s r educed so that i t com es cl ose r to A u len ta ’s. In st ea d of on e low se n te n c e, th er e w ill b e tw o low s en te n c es . B u t w h y s h ou ld on e c u lp rit re cei ve a l ower s entence than som e o therw i sesim i l aro ffender, j ust be cause the fi rs t i s “ l ucky” en ou gh to h av e a co n fed er at e t u rn s t a t e’s ev idence? Yet that i s Bosc arin o’s posi ti on, wh i ch has nei therl aw norl og i c to co m m end i t. S en te nc i ngdi spa r i ti es a r e atthe i re bb w he n the G u i d e l i ne s ar e f o l l o we d , f o rth e r a n g e s a r e th e msel ves desi gned to tr eatsi m i l aro ffenders si m i l ar l y. T ha t w as th e m ain goal ofthe Sen ten cing R eform A ct. T h e m or e o ut- of

- ra nge s entence s that j ud ges i m pose afterB o o k er, th e m or e d isp ar ity th er e w ill be. A sentence w i thi n a pr oper l y a scer tained rang e ther ef or e ca nnot be tr eat ed as unreas onabl e by referenc e to §3553 (a)( 6). U ni t e d St at e s v. Bos ca r i no , 437 F. 3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006). Defe nd ants ackno w l edge that the circ u i t’ s l aw i s a gainst th em, b utthe y c o nt en d tha t we mustr ee va l uate the subj ect i n l i ght o fR ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338 (2007), G a ll v. U nited S ta tes , 5 52 U. S
. 3 8 ( 20 07 ) , a nd Ki m b r ough v. U n ited S ta tes , 5 5 2 U. S
. 8 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , whi c h e mpha s i z e d that the Gui del i nes a re notbi nd i ng and thatdi str i ct j ud ges h a v e c o n s i d e r ab l e d i s c r et i o n t o i mpl e me n tth e i ro wn co nc ept i o ns o f j us t se nt en ce s, no twi th st an di ng the Sentencing Com m i ssi on’ s v i ew s. S ee al so Sp e a r s v . U nited Sta tes , 1 29 S
. Ct
. 8 40 ( 20 09) ; N elson v. U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S. Ct
. 890 (2009).12 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 To address defendants’ co ntenti on, we m ust s epara te tw o questi ons: fi rs t, does §3 553( a) ( 6) requirea j ud ge to re du ce a nyone’ s s entence bel ow the Guid el i ne r ange b e c a u s e o th e rp e r s o ns w h o c o mmi t t e d th e s a me c r i me but pl eaded gui l ty and coo perat ed re cei ved lo w erte rm s?; seco nd , does §3 553 as a whole p erm ita j ud ge to go be l o w the Gui del i ne r an g e f o rthi s r ea so n? The fi rs t o fthes e quest i ons re cei ved a negat i ve answ er inBos ca r i no and si m i l arcas es, wh i ch have obs er ved that §3 55 3(a )(6) ad d re ss es on ly “ u n w ar ra n t e d ” d isp ar itie s. A d ifferenc e j us tified by th e fact tha t som e w r o n g d oers ha ve a cc ept ed r es po ns ibi l i tya nd as si st ed the pr o se cut i o n, w hi l e o ther s hav e no t, i s not “unw ar ra nted. ” Th e best w ay to c ur tail“ unwar r an te d” di spa r i ti es i s to f o l l o w the Gu i del i nes, wh i ch ar e desi gned to tr eatsi m i l aroffenses an d offe n d er s s im ilar ly. Fa r fro m d isa p p ro vin g t h is u n d er st an d in g, th e Su p re m e C ou rtad op te d it inGa ll : S ec ti o n 35 53 ( a) ( 6) re qui r es j udg es t o c o ns i der“ th e need to avo i d unw ar ra nted sent ence dispar i ti es amongde fen d an ts wi ths i m i l arr ec o r ds who h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u i l t y o f s i mi l a r c o n d u c t
. ” The Court ofA pp eal s s tat ed that “th e reco rd does not show that the di strictco urt consi dered wh ether a sen ten ce of proba tion w ou ld resu lt in u n w a rr an te d di spa r i ti es . ” 44 6 F.3d a t 89 0. As wi ththe ser i ousness o fthe offense conduct, avo i dance of unw ar ra nted disp ari ti es w as cl ear l y c onsi dered bythe S en te nc in gCo m m i ss i o n whe n s et tingthe Gui del i ne s r an g es . S i nc e th e Di st r i ct J udg e corre ctl y c al cul a t e d and car efully r evi ew ed the Gu i de-N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 13 l i ne s r an g e, he ne ce ss arilyg av e si g ni fi ca ntwei g ht an d cons iderat ion t o the n eed to avoid u nw arra nted dis pari ti es. 12 8 S
. Ct
. 5 86 , 5 99 ( emphasis a dded)
. A se nt en ce wi th i n a G uid eli ne range “n eces saril y” com p li es w ith §355 3(a)( 6). Bu t there is m or e to §355 3 than §35 53( a) ( 6)
. A j ud ge m ust r e s pe c ta l lo fthe s t a t ut o r y c r i t e r i a i n o r de rt o me t e out a sente nce “s uffi ci ent, but not greaterthan necess ar y, to c om p ly w ith th e p u rp os es [of se n te n c in g] s etfort h in par ag r aph( 2) o fthi s su bs ec ti o n. ” 18 U.S. C
. § 35 53 ( a)
. The Court hel d in Ki m b r ough , an d reit er at ed inSp ears , thata j ud ge ne ed not acc ep t the Sente nc ing C o m m ission ’s p en o log ica l fram ew or k. T h e c ou rtm ay ad op t it s o w n . I t f o l l o ws tha t §3 55 3 per m i ts a j udg e to r edu ce o ne defen dant’s se ntence because ofano ther ’ s l eni ent s entence

— not b e cause of

§ 35 53 ( a) ( 6) , b utdes pitei t. A voidin g “un w arran ted ” d ispa riti es (as the Sen ten cing C om m issi on or a co ur t o fa ppea l s defi ne s th em) i s no t the s um m um bonum i n se n tencing. Othero bj ecti ves m ay have g r e a t e rwe i g h t, a n d th e c o u r ti s fr ee to h a v e i t s o wn p olic y a b ou t w h ich d iffer en c es are “u n w ar ra n te d .” It follow s t h at, i f th e d ist ric t jud ge th ou gh t h im se lf f orbi dd en to ta ke acco unt ofLem ke’ s, Cl ausi ng’ s, Schabe l ’ s, o r St ro m ei ’ s ( re l ati vel y) l ow sentence s when d ecid ing w ha t pu nish m en t to im p ose on Bartlett, Spen gler, orM asar i k, he was m i sta ken. The j ud ge d id n ot m ake th is e rro r, h ow ev er . H e c on c lu d ed th at th e d isp ar ity is j usti fi ed by m ate ri aldi ffer ences i n the offenders’ co nd uct an d ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , no t t h at a d isp ar ity is unj usti fi ed but i rr em edi abl e. The di str i ct j ud ge f ol l owed14 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 §3 55 3( a) , a nd un der st o o d the e xt en t o fhi s di sc r et i o n, w hen se ntenci ng Bart l ett, S pengl er, and M asar i k. 4. M asar i k wa s sentenced at the t op ofhi s r ange ( 151 to 188 m onths) ; thatse nten c e is rea sonab l e under §355 3 an d Rita
. S ee al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 41 5 F
. 3d 606, 608 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( an i n-r ange s en tence i s pre sum ed r ea so nabl e o n a ppea l )
. S pen g l er ’ s se nt en ce o f1 88 months ex ceeds the top of hi s ra nge ( 121 to 151 m onths) bu t is r e a s o nab l e u nd erGa ll : th e d ist ric t jud ge p ro p er ly deem ed hi m the i nsti gat or . S om e o f h is c ond uct, such a s po i nt i nga g una tJ ud e ’ s h e a d a nd p r o c l a i mi nga utho r i ty to kill an yo n e h e w a n te d , w as n otta ke n int o a c c ou n t in th e Gui del i ne s ca l cul at i o n. Bar tl et t’ s se nt en ce o f208 m onths l i k ewi se e xc ee ds th e top o fhis ra nge. H e co m m i tte d the m ostbr utalact s. Th ru st in g a pen into a per son’ s e arcanal s i s t or ture by any defi ni ti on. W hile f aci ng the st ate char ges , Bart l ett th r e a t e n e d t o b l o w u p h i s f o r me rp o l i c e st a t i o n, a c r i me f o rwhi chhe ha s be enc o nv i ct ed i n st at e co ur t an d s en tence d to 54 m on th s. H e a l so defr auded a gun deal eri nto s e l l i n gh i m a s u b ma c h i n e g u n, v i o l a t i n gg u n - c o n t r o ll a ws as w el las the ter m s o fhi s federa lbai l ; thi s c on du ct dr ew an ot h er 18 m onths i n a s epara te pros ecuti on. A di str i ct j ud ge m i ght dee m a l en gt h y c onse cuti ve sente nce es se nt i alf o ri nc apa ci ta ti o n a s wel la s d et er r en ce a nd deser t. B u t the co urt m ay not have appreci ate d that Bar tl ett ’ s s entence exce eds hi s Guidel i ne r ange. M an y c as es i n thi s ci r cui t sa y tha t sent en ce s ex ce eding th e G u id elin e ra n ge m u st be e x p l a i n ed n oton ly in abso l ute t er m s, under the cr i ter i a o f§3 553( a) , but al soN os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 15

w i th an anal ysi s o fwh y a Guidel i ne se ntence w oul d be in su fficie n t
. S ee , e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor don , 51 3 F
. 3d 659, 666 (7th C ir. 2 008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wac howi ak, 49 6 F. 3d 744, 74 9–50 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. These deci si ons did not survi ve Ne l s on , w hi ch hol ds that dist ri ct j ud ges need not

— i nd eed m ustnot

—b eg inw ith a p re su m p tio n in favor of a G uid eli ne s e n t e n c e . I f th ere is no n eed to start fro m th e p er sp ec ti ve th at an in-r an ge se n te n c e u su ally i s b e s t, th e r e i s a l s o no ne e d t o e x p l a i n w h y s o me dif fe r e nts e nt e nc e i s b e t t e r . T he j ud g e ’ s t a s ki s t o choo se a r e a s o n ab l e s e n t e n c e . T h e c o u r tmu s tt a k e th e S en tencing Com m i ssi on’ s v i ew s in to acco unt, but a s entence ca nno t be c al l ed “u nr ea so nabl e” j us t be ca us e th e j udg e ex pl ains why he c ho se tha t se nt en ce , r athe rtha n e xpla i ni ng hi s deci si on fro m th e G uidel i nes’ per specti ve. The ol d reg i m e o f“departures ” i s defunct. S ee Ir izar ry v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 2198 (2008). Alth o u g h th e j u d g e n e e d n o tu s e th e G u i d e l i n e s a s the ful cr um o fa na l y si s, the c o ur t st i l lne eds t o unde r st an d the r el ati on be tw een the Guidel i nes a nd the ul ti m ate sente nce. BothRita a nd Ga ll sa y that the co urt m ust c on st ru c t a G u id elin e ra n ge ac c u ra te ly. A se n te n c e is p ro c ed u ra lly u n r e a s on ab le if th e jud ge th in ks it w ith in th e range , bu t it isn’t

— ei therbec ause th e range was not deter m i ned accura tely in the dist ri ct c ourt, o r because the j ud ge m i sund er sto od w hat that r ange w as. Bar tl et t’ s r an g e i s 15 1 to 1 88 m ont hs. M ucho fthe s en te nc i ngt r an sc r i pt r ea ds as a n e xpl an at i o n abo utwhy th e se nt en ce is at th e hi g h e nd o fthe r an g e. At the e nd o fthe pr o ce eding, the j ud ge st at ed bl unt l y tha t th e se n-16 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 te nc e woul d b e th e to p o fthe r an g e. B utthe a ctua ls en t e n c e o f2 0 8 mo n th s i s 2 0 mo n th s h i g h e r . T h a t ’ s a p r o b l e m. The pros ecuto r say s that, bythe cl ose o fthe proc eedi ng, the j ud ge had rec ogni zed that20 8 m onths exceeds Bartlet t’s ran ge . Th e t ra n sc rip t is n otas cle ar to u s a s it appe ar s to b e to the pr o se cut o r . Gi ve n the r i sko fc o nfu

si on , t h e be tte r part ofwisdom i s t o askthe dist ri ct j ud ge to tak e a notherl oo k, to ensur e that the se ntence re sts o n a del iber ate choi ce r athert h an a m i sta ke. A 20 8- m onth sente nce i s r eas on abl e s ubstanti vel y, but no o ne, not even a Bar tl ett, sho uld l ose 20 m onths offre edom be ca us e a di st r i ctj udg e r ea d a cr o ss the wro ngl i ne i n a tabl e. ( The ra nge 1 68 to 210 m ont h s i s the next hi ghest inth e G u id elin es ’ se n te n c in g t ab le.) N one th eless, th e pros ecu tor m aintain s, B artlett forf e i t e d an y op p or tu n ity for a p p ella te relie f be c au se h e d id not “obj ect” to the 2 08- m onth s entence o n the gr ound that it excee d s the Gu ideline rang e. W e p u t “obj ect” i n sc are quotes be c ause re m onst ra ti on with the j ud ge i s no t a n obj ecti on as usual l y und er sto od. Both the Rules of Ev ide n c e and the Rules o fCri m i nalPro cedure re quir e a l i ti gant to m ake kno w n the posi tion it advoca tes and to prese nt ev i dence and ar gum ent forthatposi ti on. These st eps a r e es se nt i alt o f ac i l i ta te i nt el l i g en t dec i sio n in the dist ri ct c ourt
. Counselpre sent posi ti on s, and j ud ges then de c i de
. Bu tthe r ul e s do n o tr e qu i r e a l i t i g a ntto com pla i n abo ut a j u d icia lchoi ce a fteri t has bee n m ade. S ucha c o m pl ainti s pr o per l y c al l ed, no t a n obj ec ti o n, b ut a n e xc e pt i o n. The r ul e ab o ute xc e pt i o ns i s e xp l i c i t : “ Ex c e ptio n s t o r u lin gs or or d er s o f th e c ou rtare u n n ec es sa ry .”N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 17 F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 5 1( a)
. Rul e 51(b) adds tha t a l i ti g an t pr es er ve s a co nt en ti o n fo rr ev i ew “ byi nf o r m i ngthe cour t [ bef or e the deci si on is m ad e] ofthe acti on the par ty w i shes the c ourtto ta ke
. . . an d t h e g ro und s for ” that ac ti o n. Bar tl et t an d hi s l awy er ar g ue d f o r a l o wer s en te n c e, an d th e y g a ve rea so n s. T h ey h av e p re se rv ed th eir appell ate o pti ons. H av i ngs ai d thi s, we m us t ac k no wl edg e th ats o m e o fo ur o pi ni o ns us e th e wor d “obj ec ti o n” i n th e sa m e w ay the pros ecuto r did , a nd theyhol d (o r at l eas t s ugges t) that l aw yer s m ust ask a j ud ge to re consi der the sente n c e (o r ot h er d ec isio n ) as th e p ric e o f ap p ella te rev iew . See , e.g., U nited Sta tes v . Ha rvey, 232 F.3d 585 , 587 (7th C ir. 2000); U nite d States v. M arvin , 135 F.3d 1129 , 1 135 (7th C ir. 1998). The se dec i si o ns do no t di sc us s Rul e 51 ( a) , an d f or the m os t p ar t t h ey d id n otn e e d to ; th ey are co m p at ible w ith R u le 5 1( b) , wh i ch ( i n l anguage thatwe did not re produce ab ove ) r equi re s a pro tes t i m m edi ate l y a fter the ruling i fthe l i ti gant did nothave an o pp or tuni ty to ar gu e t h e p oin t e ar lier. W h en th e jud ge su rp ris es co u n se l, i t i s fa rb et te rt o a i ra nd r es o l ve the matt erin the dist ri ct c ourt t han to by pass a vai l abl e o pp or tuni ti es f or c or recti on a nd sa ve the i ssue f orappeal
. But w hen an i ssue i s a rgued bef or e the j ud i ci alr uling, co unselneed not ta k e ex ce pti o n o nc e th e co ur t’ s dec i si o n h as been a nnounced. That’ s w h at Rule 51( a) sa ys. Bart l ett ’ s s entence w as th e s u bj ec t o f ex te n siv e a r g u m en t a n d ev id en c e; h is l awy erdi d no t ne ed to arg ue wi ththe j udg e o nc e th e s e nt e nc e h a d b e e n pr o no un c e d. Allthr ee c o nv i ct i o ns , a nd the se nt en ce s o fSpe ng l era nd M as ar i k, a r e affi r m ed. Bartlet t’ s se nt en ce i s va ca te d, a nd18 N os. 08

- 1196, 08

- 1197& 08

- 1198 hi s ca se i s r em anded f or p ro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

6- 8- 09