Opinion ID: 732424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Specific Evidence Requirement

Text: The specific evidence we required to prove a relevant-conduct quantity of drugs for purposes of enhancing a sentence must be evidence that points specifically to a drug quantity for which the defendant is responsible. By mentioning drug records and admissions as examples of specific evidence we thought it reasonably clear that we were referring to the defendant--his admissions and records of his drug transactions. And by live testimony we were referring to testimony about his drug transactions. Judge Weinstein apparently misunderstood our prior opinion to equate specific evidence with direct evidence, a consequence that, as he pointed out, Shonubi III, 895 F.Supp. at 478, would preclude all use of circumstantial evidence. However, our identification of drug records as one example of specific evidence should have dispelled that misunderstanding since such records are a form of circumstantial evidence. If a defendant's drug records reflect drug transactions of a specific quantity, that is circumstantial evidence permitting the inference that the defendant has trafficked in that quantity of drugs. Our approach might fairly be criticized on the arguable ground that since sentencing facts need normally be established only by a preponderance of the evidence, except where Gigante is applicable, a rigorous standard concerning the quality of evidence should not be applied in a context where the degree of persuasion required is reduced. This argument does not persuade us to abandon a safeguard adopted in response to the Sentencing Commission's insistence that a defendant should be punished for unconvicted relevant conduct exactly as if he had been convicted of such conduct. In sentencing proceedings, as they existed before the Sentencing Guidelines, and still exist throughout all of the states of this Nation, we tolerate a wide ranging scope of evidence to prove related criminal conduct, even with the reduced preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, because such evidence is generally available only for such consideration as the sentencing judge (or in some states the sentencing jury) decides to accord to it. But under the Sentencing Guidelines, evidence tending to prove relevant conduct is not merely taken into consideration at sentencing, it determines sentencing (subject only to departure authority), and it does so at the same level of severity as if the defendant had been convicted of the relevant conduct. That circumstance prompted us to require specific evidence of a relevant conduct drug quantity, and we adhere to that requirement. If some specific evidence of quantity is presented, we do not rule out the possibility that evidence of the sort considered by the District Court might be usefully assessed in determining whether the alleged quantity had been established by a preponderance of the evidence. However, if specific evidence of the quantity handled by the defendant (or others for whose acts he is responsible) is available, it is not likely that the time and effort required to conduct probability analyses of quantities carried by other drug couriers would be worthwhile.