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

[vetpsychwars.livejournal.com]

Yes, it works exactly that way. The Supreme Court is the last appeal. It refused to hear the case. There is no other appeal. Therefore the finding is that there is no error in law.

I am using very specific language, narrowly defined, to mean one specific thing. Don't try to twist it otherwise.

I don't disagree that the drug dealer might have gotten shafted some, but the courts have said that he didn't, so you'd need the Legislature to say that he did.

Feel free to argue more. I'm done. :-)

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Let’s look at your “very specific language, narrowly defined, to mean one specific thing.”

As for whether it's right, there is certainly precedent for it and the sentencing guidelines are just that. The judge can impose any sentence he wants, and the appeals court upheld it; that the US Supreme Court neglected to hear the case means that there was no error.

I am unable to read that in any sense other than to mean courts are not bound by guidelines for the majority of their cases (they are); that judges can impose any sentence he wants (they can’t); and that SCOTUS refusing to hear a case means there was no error in the case (it doesn’t).

If I am somehow “twisting” your words, please correct me.

You have also said:

There is no error in law.

That sentence comes from a bold assertion that since the appellate court failed to find error and SCOTUS denied cert, therefore it’s correct. Yet we know that’s not true at all. Look at, e.g., Brown v Board of Education, which held that the decision previously reached in Plessy v Ferguson was incorrect. Either you’re correct and whatever SCOTUS decides is always a priori correct — or SCOTUS can be correct when they say, “sometimes we make mistakes.” (For another case that reversed a precedent, look at how Katz effectively invalidated the legal reasoning of Olmstead.)

But you can't just jump up and down and say it's wrong.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Sorry. Too many Americans have died protecting that right for me to turn a blind eye to your assertion that we shouldn’t exercise it. The right to tell the government saying “no, you’re wrong!” is embedded in the Constitution. It is a principle worth fighting for, worth dying for, worth killing over.

If you’re willing to give up your right to say a decision of the government — in this case its judicial branch — is wrong and has caused you a grievance, fine: let that be your folly.

But don’t expect us to join you in it.