Court Opinion

ID: 9482825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:01:54.767471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:13.943754
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Chief Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, but in one respect I question the reasoning in the Court’s opinion.
Summerfield disputes, for purposes of computing his sentence, the quantity of drugs attributed to him by the District Court. The Court’s findings of fact on this point are based in large part on live testimony it had heard at the trial of other people. This Court refers to them as “co-defendants,” and this is so in the sense that they were indicted for conduct closely connected to Summerfield’s, but they were not co-defendants in the sense of being tried with Summerfield. Summerfield, of course, pleaded guilty, and therefore had no trial.
Thus, Summerfield’s sentence is substantially increased because of testimony that neither he nor his lawyer heard, and that . he never had the chance to cross-examine. I find this disturbing in the extreme. It seems to me to depart radically from deeply rooted traditions of fair play and due process. In the present case, though, Sum-merfield made no objection to the consideration of this evidence, and it would therefore be improper for us to reverse on this basis.
What bothers me about the Court’s opinion (in which I otherwise concur fully) is that it strongly implies, if it does not hold, that the procedure followed here was proper. The Court could have based its conclusion solely on Summerfield’s failure to preserve his record. It does not do so. For this reason, I cannot join its opinion, and concur only in the judgment.