During impeachment storm, senators cross aisle to lessen mass incarceration
© iStock

A jury recently found Eric Beck not guilty of murder, but the judge sentenced him to prison for it anyway. The jury convicted Beck of firearms possession for which sentencing laws would have recommended he receive two to six years in prison. Nevertheless, the judge sentenced Beck to 20 to 33 years because he disagreed with the jury and believed—based on a lower legal standard than what our Constitution requires—that Beck was also guilty of murder.

All federal (and most state) judges currently have the ability to ignore a jury’s verdict and undermine the requirement that criminal convictions be imposed only after having been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead, federal law currently allows judges to increase a person’s sentence if they determine that the government has proven its accusations under a mere “preponderance of evidence” standard. Although Beck’s sentence was ultimately overturned in a state supreme court, such “acquitted conduct sentencing” remains legal practically everywhere else.

The Bill of Rights sets out protections for the accused, including the right to trial by jury and due process of law. The Double Jeopardy Clause rejects retrying—and thus punishing—a defendant for a crime for which he has been acquitted. And, as the Supreme Court has explained, the Sixth Amendment’s “core concern” is to reserve critical facts for determination by the jury. Punishing an accused person based on acquitted conduct abrogates all of these constitutional protections as well as notions of fundamental fairness.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jurists across the ideological spectrum have assailed the practice. Five years ago, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgEqual Rights Amendment will replace equality with enforced sameness SCOTUS 'TRAP law' case and the erosion of abortion rights Trump and Obama equally admired? Eight things popularity polls tell us MORE and Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSanders campaign official: Biden 'actively courted pro-segregation senators' to block black students from white schools Electability is key to Democrats' 2020 fortunes Congress grants military members partial victory, but Feres Doctrine survives MORE, wrote that sentencing based on acquitted conduct “has gone on long enough.” Former Justice John Paul Stevens rejected the practice and Justices Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchJanuary reminds us why courts matter — and the dangers of 'Trump judges' Planned Parenthood launches M campaign to back Democrats in 2020 Appeals court appears wary of letting Trump reinstate death sentences MORE and Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughHow Citizens United altered America's political landscape Overnight Health Care: Justices won't fast-track ObamaCare case before election | New virus spreads from China to US | Collins challenger picks up Planned Parenthood endorsement Progressive group targets Collins over vote for Kavanaugh in new digital ad campaign MORE each eschewed it as circuit court judges. Just last year, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Millett wrote that the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, “allowed the government a second bite at the incarceration apple,” and explained that “Incarceration without conviction is a constitutional anathema.”

A jury of one’s peers serves as a democratic bulwark against the imposition of arbitrary government punishment. Our Founders understood that criminal prosecution was one of the strongest tools a government could use against its people. They determined that their government must prove its case to the accused’s community through a jury. A rule that allows a judge to base a person’s sentence on unproven accusations a jury has actually rejected turns these constitutional protections on their head.

Jurors understand the stakes in the cases before them, sometimes sacrificing their lives for months to ensure justice is done. One juror published a moving letter to the judge after he learned the defendant in his trial was to be sentenced for conduct the jury had purposefully rejected. He wrote, “What does it say to our contribution as jurors when we see our verdicts…not given their proper weight? …Had [prosecutors] shown us hard evidence, [a guilty verdict] might have been the outcome, but that was not the case.”

Despite the many condemnations of acquitted conduct sentencing, it remains accepted practice. The Due Process Institute—a bipartisan nonprofit dedicated to restoring fairness in the criminal legal system—has been leading the fight to abolish this practice both in courts and on Capitol Hill. We have recently filed an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of this practice. But we can’t afford to wait for the High Court to do the right thing.

Therefore, we proudly endorse bipartisan legislation—the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2019 (S.2566)—introduced last week by Senate Minority Whip Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinSenate braces for bitter fight over impeachment rules Sunday shows - All eyes on Senate impeachment trial Durbin says he hopes enough GOP senators know that 'history will find you' MORE (D-Ill.), Sens. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOvernight Health Care: Justices won't fast-track ObamaCare case before election | New virus spreads from China to US | Collins challenger picks up Planned Parenthood endorsement Mnuchin warns UK, Italy of tariffs if digital tax plans are implemented GOP can beat Democrats after impeachment — but it needs to do this one thing MORE (R-Iowa), Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyOvernight Defense: Book says Trump called military leaders 'dopes and babies' | House reinvites Pompeo for Iran hearing | Dems urge Esper to reject border wall funding request Senate Dems urge Esper to oppose shifting Pentagon money to border wall Senate opens Trump impeachment trial MORE (D-Vt.), Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeSenators are politicians, not jurors — they should act like it Sens. Kaine, Lee: 'We should not be at war with Iran unless Congress authorizes it' Overnight Defense: War powers fight runs into impeachment | Kaine has 51 votes for Iran resolution | Trump plans to divert .2B from Pentagon to border wall MORE (R-Utah), Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerPatrick backs reparations in unveiling 'Equity Agenda for Black Americans' Booker ahead of Trump impeachment trial: 'History has its eyes on us' Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers gear up for Senate impeachment trial MORE (D-N.J.) and Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisProgressive group launches campaign targeting vulnerable GOP senators on impeachment Senate braces for bitter fight over impeachment rules Juan Williams: Counting the votes to remove Trump MORE (R-N.C.). This proposed law would make it clear that a judge cannot increase a person’s prison sentence based on acts for which a person was found not guilty. It ensures that a person who is punished with prison is only punished for those crimes that a prosecutor proved, not those they would have liked to have proven.

Justice is not a partisan issue and every American wants a fair and effective criminal justice system. That requires respect for due process, restoring the primacy of the citizen jury, and adhering to the core principles of our Constitution. We applaud Grassley and Durbin for leading the effort to reach across the aisle in a difficult political environment to affirm that Americans should not serve prison time for crimes they did not commit.

Shana-Tara O’Toole is the Founder and President of the Due Process Institute. The Due Process Institute is a bipartisan 501(c)(4) who educates, lobbies, and litigates on behalf of the principles of fundamental fairness and procedural due process rights in the criminal legal system. In conjunction with today’s legislation introduction, the Due Process Institute also announces the launch of its national education, advocacy, and litigation campaign #JuriesDecide.