Opinion ID: 578165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Information Available at Sentencing

Text: 28 Whether to consider illegally seized evidence at sentencing requires us also to consider the latitude given to judges to consider other evidence at sentencing. United States courts historically have permitted a sentencing judge [to] exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1082, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). Because [a] sentence reflects a prediction of future events based largely upon the defendant's past, Schipani, 315 F.Supp. at 255, a judge's inquiry traditionally has been largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972). 29 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987, codified the traditional purposes of sentencing, both recognizing the importance of imposing individual sentences, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)--(2), and displaying a desire to allow a broad inquiry into relevant information concerning a defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.); Guidelines § 6A1.3(a) (In resolving any reasonable dispute concerning a factor important to the sentencing determination, the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility.). Moreover, the Supreme Court recently has evinced a continued desire to provide courts with as much information as possible at sentencing. See Payne v. Tennessee, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (capital sentencing juries may take into account evidence of the murder victim's character and the impact of the crime on the victim's family). 30 The tradition of providing complete information at sentencing blossomed in a judicial system that granted a district judge enormous flexibility in assessing a suitable penalty. Obviously, such flexibility has been limited by the Guidelines. District judges do retain some limited discretion in imposing sentences, however, and only a showing of significant countervailing values--which has not been made in this case--would convince us to limit the information that district judges may or should consider in calculating Guidelines sentences.