Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Traps for the Unwary: Cross References and Guideline Sentencing
By Mark P. Rankin; Rachel R. May
Grid & Bear It columns.
To laypersons and attorneys alike, it sounds like an illogical and grossly unfair idea: defendants pleading guilty to one crime and then being sentenced severely for a completely different act. Unfortunately, this travesty is reality in federal court, as implemented by a series of “cross references” within the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Aimed at capturing real offense conduct and preventing charge bargaining, cross references have long been identified as a trap for the unwary. In Blakely v. Washington1, Justice Scalia expressed dismay at sentencing guidelines’ tendency to punish defendants based upon uncharged, even acquitted, conduct. He noted that under such a system “a judge could sentence a man for committing murder, even if the jury convicted him only of possessing the firearm used to commit it – or of making an illegal lane change while fleeing the death scene.2" Justice Scalia called such a sentence an “absurd result.”3 Soon thereafter, in United States v. Booker4, the
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.