US Supreme Court won’t rule on sentencing

The Washington Post reports the court let stand a lower ruling against Vladimir Rodriguez, a Florida man who challenged a nine-year drug sentence he received under mandatory guidelines that the Supreme Court subsequently threw out as unconstitutional. The court ruled in January that the mandatory guidelines violated a defendant\'s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. That\'s because the guidelines required judges to make factual decisions that affect prison time, such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime or amount of money involved in fraud. Full report in The Washington Post

The Supreme Court ruling has also sparked calls for more uniform sentences. US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales says minimum sentences are needed so that there can be some uniformity in the sentencing of criminals. The AG’s comments come after assertions by the Bush administration that federal judges are handing out lighter prison sentences since the US Supreme Court decision gave them more discretion, reports the Los Angeles Times. The proposal by Gonzales seeks to give judges continued flexibility in setting prison terms while requiring them to justify any sentence lighter than the guidelines. But the proposal appears to fall short of calls supported by some members of Congress to mandate minimum sentences for certain crimes, stripping judges of any ability to moderate sentences. Full report in the Los Angeles Times