Court Opinion

ID: 9470105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:57:21.35044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:44.288369
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur with the majority, I write separately to emphasize what I consider to be the central holding of the Court today: namely, that a district judge may not, when sentencing a defendant, rely on inferences of possible participation in other crimes based solely on the government’s promise not to prosecute for such other crimes. Due process demands that there be something justifying dependence on a particular factor before a judge may make that factor a basis, even in part, of a sentence.1 Because a promise not to prosecute, without more, is not a reliable indicator of criminal involvement, it cannot be used as the predicate for an adverse evaluation of the defendant’s character. This seems particularly so here, since the letter from the prosecutor to the Parole Commission made this abundantly clear. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the district court in this case based its sentencing decision partially on the government’s promise not to prosecute for certain alleged crimes, I agree that the matter should be remanded so that the defendant may be resentenced.

. See Moore v. United States, 571 F.2d 179 (3d Cir.1979); Note, A Proposal to Ensure Accuracy in Presentence Investigation Reports, 91 Yale L.J. 1225 (1982).