Title: No Lie about It, the Perjury Sentencing Guidelines Must Change
Abstract: Perjury is an ancient that has been prominent the media recently with high-profile perjury cases such as those of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Defendants convicted of perjury, like Bonds, are sentenced under the current United States Sentencing Guidelines [section] 2J1.3. But the current Perjury Guidelines are working an injustice the American legal system and undermining Congress's goals creating the Guidelines, namely consistency and fairness the federal sentencing process. Under the Perjury Guidelines, a judge can increase a defendant's sentence by applying a cross reference the Accessory After the Fact Guideline. This cross reference directs a judge increase a defendant's sentence where the perjury was in respect an underlying typically resulting a significant increase prison time. The underlying crime includes crimes of which a jury acquitted a defendant or crimes with which a defendant was never charged. For example, a defendant committed perjury during a grand jury investigation into the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl, but the government only charged him with perjury. Without applying the cross reference and factoring the defendant's criminal history, the advisory Guidelines range was 18-24 months imprisonment. At sentencing, however, the judge applied the cross reference and determined that the criminal offense was second-degree murder. The resulting advisory range was 108-135 months. But had the defendant committed perjury' a civil case, his Guidelines range would only be 15-21 months. If he had committed perjury a criminal case involving the distribution of 50 grams of methamphetamine, then the Guidelines range would be 63-78 months, or the case of perjury involving a bank robbery, 21-27 months. As these hypotheticals demonstrate, the current Perjury Guidelines create vast inconsistencies sentencing depending on (1) whether perjury was committed a civil or criminal case, and (2) what underlying crime is used calculate the Guidelines range for a perjury violation a criminal case. Undoubtedly, perjury is a serious and threatens the integrity of the American justice system. All perjury violations, however, are serious and involve the same core conduct and, as such, perjury violations should be sentenced a similar manner. This lack of consistency sentencing undermines Congress's goals creating the Guidelines. The Perjury Guidelines also violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by destroying the criminal jury's important historical role because a judge may use uncharged or acquitted conduct increase the sentence for a perjury violation. Utilizing uncharged or acquitted conduct at sentencing is not new the Guidelines. But the cross reference, where the perjury is in respect to the underlying crime, is so broad and inconsistent application that it allows unproven and uncharged conduct impact excessively the advisory Guidelines range. Congress or the United States Sentencing Commission can and should rectify this situation. I. INTRODUCTION The current Perjury Guidelines violate the most basic tenets of the American criminal justice system: the presumption of innocence and the right an impartial jury trial. The presumption of innocence is an axiomatic and elementary tenet of criminal law, and enforcement of this tenet is the foundation of the American criminal justice system. (1) The other foundational principle of the system requires all defendants receive a fair and impartial jury trial. (2) But the current Perjury Guidelines (3) violate the American criminal justice system's commitment fairness and impartiality when applied a defendant acquitted of, or never charged with, any other besides perjury committed a criminal case. United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) [section] 2J1. …
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-03-22
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot