"Looser Sentencing Rules Stir Concerns About Equity": Wall Street Journal writer Amir Efrati reports that federal judges today are excercising more freedoms as they depart from sentencing guidelines. This new latitude in sentencing is creating a problem in the justice system: Defendants are receiving wildly different sentences for similar crimes. This freedom of judicial sentencing risks a return to the problem that prompted Congress to call for uniform sentencing guildelines in the late 1980s, that defendants' fates will be subject largely to the whims of individual judges. Even Attorney General Eric Holder is concerned. In June, he said in a speech it was important to assess recent sentencing practices for disparties.
Wood v. Allen Competency Claim Varied: New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on a claim of incompetency in the defence of Holly Wood, convicted in 1994 of murdering his former girlfriend. Wood is seking a decision overturning his death sentence because, he claims, his defense attorneys did not thoroughy investigate and produce evidence of Wood's mental retardation. SCOTUSwiki summarizes this as a strategic move by the defendants attorneys to receive a merciful sentence. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation's press release on the case further shows how Wood's claim to mental retardation was a fabrication. There were notes from his mental evaluation revealing Wood had a low IQ, but the same report shows he suffered no mental impairment that prevented him from understanding that his criminal behavior was wrong. Recognizing that the evaluation, as well as Wood's own statements about being prone to violent behavior might harm their defense, his lead attorney asked the court to suppress the evaluation and all other psychiatric and psychological evidence from the trial or sentence hearing. As Justice Scalia noted, "There was nothing [in the report] that was going to help them, and there might be stuff that could hurt them." It doesn't sound like he believed counsel was as ineffective as Woods claims.
Wood v. Allen Competency Claim Varied: New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on a claim of incompetency in the defence of Holly Wood, convicted in 1994 of murdering his former girlfriend. Wood is seking a decision overturning his death sentence because, he claims, his defense attorneys did not thoroughy investigate and produce evidence of Wood's mental retardation. SCOTUSwiki summarizes this as a strategic move by the defendants attorneys to receive a merciful sentence. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation's press release on the case further shows how Wood's claim to mental retardation was a fabrication. There were notes from his mental evaluation revealing Wood had a low IQ, but the same report shows he suffered no mental impairment that prevented him from understanding that his criminal behavior was wrong. Recognizing that the evaluation, as well as Wood's own statements about being prone to violent behavior might harm their defense, his lead attorney asked the court to suppress the evaluation and all other psychiatric and psychological evidence from the trial or sentence hearing. As Justice Scalia noted, "There was nothing [in the report] that was going to help them, and there might be stuff that could hurt them." It doesn't sound like he believed counsel was as ineffective as Woods claims.
Leave a comment