Opinion ID: 732424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Punishment for Unconvicted Conduct

Text: 7 One of the most significant changes effected by the Sentencing Guidelines is the prescription of precisely calibrated punishment for conduct of which the defendant has not been convicted. Prior to the Guidelines, the law was settled that a defendant's wrongful conduct, beyond the conduct constituting the offense of conviction, was relevant to punishment, see Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246-47, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1082-83, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), but the law established no specification of the additional punishment a defendant was to receive for such unconvicted conduct. Instead, the sentencing judge was entitled, but not required, to take such conduct into account and enhance the sentence to whatever extent the judge thought appropriate, up to the maximum sentence applicable to the offense of conviction. 8 The Guidelines introduced a new approach to sentencing for unconvicted conduct. Endeavoring to strike a balance between punishing only for the offense of conviction and punishing for all wrongful conduct that could be established at a sentencing hearing, the Guidelines opted for incremental punishment for conduct deemed to be relevant to the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. As to such relevant conduct, the Guidelines then took the extraordinary and totally unprecedented step of punishing the relevant conduct at precisely the same degree of severity as if the defendant had been charged with and convicted of the activity constituting the relevant conduct. No other guideline system in any of the states has instituted such an approach to punishment. 9 The Guidelines' approach to punishment for relevant conduct can be illustrated most clearly in the context in which the pending appeal arises--drug offenses. The Guidelines contain a drug quantity table to be used for sentencing drug offenders. The table contains 17 gradations of offense level, each correlated to a different range of quantity for various drugs. Id. § 2D1.1(c). Each offense level, in turn, correlates to a different range of punishment. For example, for heroin, the quantity ranges, corresponding offense levels, and corresponding punishment ranges (for a defendant with no prior criminal record and without any aggravating or mitigating adjustments) are as follows: 10 heroin quantity offense level punishment Having specified these offense levels and punishments for various heroin quantities, the Guidelines then take the crucial step of specifying that the relevant conduct for a defendant convicted of a drug offense includes all of the additional drugs, beyond the quantity in the offense of conviction, that were unlawfully distributed or possessed with intent to distribute either by the defendant personally or by the reasonably foreseeable acts of others in furtherance of a jointly undertaken criminal activity. Id. § 1B1.3(a)(1), (2). Thus, a defendant convicted of distributing 50 grams of heroin may be punished with imprisonment of up to 41 months, but if the sentencing judge finds that he (or a confederate acting foreseeably) also distributed an additional 550 grams, the defendant may be punished for the aggregate 600 grams with imprisonment of up to 97 months, precisely the same punishment he could have received if he had been charged with and convicted of distributing the entire quantity of 600 grams. 2 A guideline system that prescribes punishment for unconvicted conduct at the same level of severity as convicted conduct obviously obliges courts to proceed carefully in determining the standards for establishing whether the relevant conduct has been proven. We have recognized the need for such care with regard to the basic issue of the degree of the burden of proof. Thus, though the Sentencing Commission has favored the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for resolving all disputed fact issues at sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3., p.s., comment., we have ruled that a more rigorous standard should be used in determining disputed aspects of relevant conduct where such conduct, if proven, will significantly enhance a sentence. See United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53, 56-57 (2d Cir.1996) (denying petition for rehearing). A similar concern guided our decision on the prior appeal in this case. Aware of the consequences of a relevant conduct finding as to drug quantities, we invoked the rule from prior case law of our Circuit that, we observed, uniformly requires specific evidence--e.g., drug records, admissions or live testimony--to calculate drug quantities for sentencing purposes. Shonubi II, 998 F.2d at 89 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).