Uh ... say what, now?

[unixronin]

[...] even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."

WTF?

Excuse me if I've been asleep a long time, but ... the last time I knew, the standard of proof in a criminal case was not "by a preponderance of the evidence", it was "beyond a reasonable doubt".  And then the high court refused to hear an appeal?

Somebody just got railroaded here, and if this stands up, it's a very, very dangerous precedent.  What's the next step?  Presumption of guilt instead of presumption of innocence?  Eliminating the jury altogether and going to an inquisitorial court system like, say, Italy's?  Perhaps we could allow secret evidence in all trials, not just ones where someone within a half-mile radius said the word "terrorist", and deny all defendants the right to confront their accusers, hear and contest evidence presented against them, or know the charges against them.

Comments

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Particularly, SCOTUS has ruled that any enhancement to a defendant's sentence must be rooted in facts reported by the jury. If the jury's findings do not encompass a certain material fact, the judge is forbidden from relying on that fact to enhance or diminish the sentence.

Scalia in particular was adamant on it, saying that to do otherwise would be to insult the jury system. Juries are the ultimate triers of fact, and for a judge to make any determination of fact usurps a power which the people have reserved exclusively to the jury.

So yeah -- without additional facts, I don't buy this reporting.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm with Scalia on this one.