Opinion ID: 541981
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reliance on Improper Factors

Text: 24 The defendants first argue that the district court violated their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Specifically, the defendants contend that because they did not speak on their own behalf at the sentencing hearing, 7 the district court used their right to remain silent against them by relying on their lack of remorse in imposing their sentences. 25 During the sentencing proceeding, the district court stated: 26 I am also struck by the fact that none of the defendants have owned up to their crime, not that they have any obligation to do so, but there is no indication on their part that they recognize that this was a horrendous crime or that they are even sorry for what they did. So, I do not in my heart find a great deal as far as mitigation is concerned. 27 (Sentencing Tr. at 43). 28 The due process clause of the fifth amendment prohibits a court from punishing a defendant for exercising a constitutional right, United States v. Long, 823 F.2d 1209, 1211 (7th Cir.1987); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 667, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). There is a distinction, however, between punishing a defendant for exercising his right to remain silent and considering the defendant's character in determining an appropriate sentence. United States v. Bangert, 645 F.2d 1297, 1309 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 860, 102 S.Ct. 314, 70 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981); United States v. Allen, 596 F.2d 227, 231 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 149, 62 L.Ed.2d 97 (1979); United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 1138 (1st Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 958, 99 S.Ct. 1499, 59 L.Ed.2d 771 (1979). We disagree with the defendants' claim that these remarks evince an intent on the part of the court to punish them for their silence. 29 It is well established that a sentencing judge may consider lack of remorse when imposing a sentence. Nowicki, 870 F.2d at 407 (trial judge may consider defendant's refusal to recognize offense); Perez, 858 F.2d at 1276 (sentencing judge may consider whether defendant is contrite); Ford, 840 F.2d at 467 (trial judge can consider defendant's refusal to recognize offense at sentencing hearing); Sato, 814 F.2d at 452 (there is no doubt that sentencing judge may consider whether defendant is contrite); Marquardt, 786 F.2d at 782 (defendant's refusal to recognize offense is relevant factor in sentencing). We recognize that it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish between punishing a defendant for remaining silent and considering a defendant's failure to show remorse. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the defendants in the present case were not penalized for exercising their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. There were other reasons sufficient to justify the sentences. 30 The record shows that at the sentencing hearing, none of the defendants asserted his right to remain silent. Joiner had denied his guilt in his version of the offense in the presentence report. Neither Johnson's nor Buford's report contained a defendant's version of the offense. While Buford's attorney did inform the probation officer that his client's version of the offense would not be forthcoming because the case was on appeal, Buford did not assert the privilege at the hearing. 8 31 At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it was considering rehabilitation, punishment, and general deterrence. It is evident from the record that the court considered a range of factors in seeking to balance these interests. The court emphasized the type of crimes that the defendants had committed, finding that such crimes struck at the very heart of our system of justice. The court also looked at the defendants' ages, employment records, and criminal histories, all of which are factors concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense that section 3661 authorizes a sentencing court to consider. 32 Additionally, while expressing its discomfort with the defendants' failure to acknowledge their crimes, the district court at the same time explicitly recognized the defendants' right not to do so. At most, the court's comments indicate that showing remorse could be a possible mitigating factor in sentencing, which is not an improper view. See United States v. Thompson, 76 F.2d 1196, 1201 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 918, 94 S.Ct. 214, 38 L.Ed.2d 154 (1973) (A show of lenience to those who exhibit contrition by admitting guilt does not carry a corollary that the Judge indulges in a policy of penalizing those who elect to stand trial.). 33 It is clear that the district court considered a wide range of permissible factors when determining what sentences to impose--sentences that we note were well below the statutory maximum. We therefore conclude that no violation of the defendants' right against self-incrimination occurred at the sentencing hearing. 34 The defendants also argue that the district court violated their fifth amendment due process right to be sentenced fairly on the basis of accurate information. Specifically, the defendants contend that the court improperly considered the defendants' admitted membership in the El Rukn organization as well as information included in the presentence report pertaining to the shooting by other El Rukns of the relatives of Trammel Davis. The defendants' sole support for their due process argument is the following statement made by the district court at the sentencing hearing: 35 I have been asked not to judge on the history of the El Rukns but that permeates this entire case because these gentlemen, in committing the crimes that they did, were operating as members of the El Rukns, under the discipline of the El Rukns. 36 (Sentencing Tr. at 35). Read in its entirety, however, the record of the hearing reveals that no due process violation occurred. 37 We have already determined that the district court looked to a number of permissible factors when sentencing the defendants. See supra Part II.B.1. To the extent that the district court might have considered the defendants' gang membership, such consideration was not improper. Gang membership, insofar as it bears on the issues of rehabilitation and general deterrence, may be a relevant factor in fashioning an appropriate sentence. Moreover, the record shows that the defendants, who were El Rukns, carried out the attack on Tetter at the direction of the El Rukn organization. 9 Given the relevance of gang membership to the possibility of rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence as well as to the facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the district court's consideration of the defendants' El Rukn membership was improper. 38 We similarly find the defendants' claim that they were sentenced for alleged unrelated activities of gang members to be without merit. While the government's version of the offense described other recent acts of witness intimidation and retaliation committed by unidentified El Rukn members, there is no evidence in the record that the court relied on this information in sentencing the defendants. Rather, the record demonstrates that the court viewed this information as background only. 10 We therefore conclude that the district court did not sentence the defendants for crimes they did not commit in violation of their due process rights.