09082004 - News Article - Courts ordered to continue sentencing - Judge denies request to halt decisions until high court case is heard

Courts ordered to continue sentencing 
Judge denies request to halt decisions until high court case is heard

Post-Tribune (IN)
September 8, 2004

http://infoweb.newsbank.com.proxy.portagelibrary.info/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=1052B518B238068B&p_docnum=114&p_queryname=1

Despite the current debate over federal sentencing guidelines, upcoming sentences should go on as scheduled, according to an order by Chief Judge Robert Miller. 

Last month, U.S. Attorney Joseph Van Bokkelen filed a motion requesting that the Northern District of Indiana halt all sentences until the U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision on how the Blakely v. Washington case applies to federal sentencing guidelines. 

In the Blakely case, Supreme Court judges ruled the sentencing guidelines in place in the state of Washington, which mirror those at the federal level, are unconstitutional. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will examine the issue when it reconvenes in October. 

In his order, Miller wrote only that he had reviewed the written submissions by the community defender's office, the U.S. attorney and other parties and consulted with the other district judges. He offered no further explanation as to why he denied Van Bokkelen's request. 

Miller declined an interview for this story due to his court schedule. 

While defense attorneys have long questioned the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines, most seemed to oppose the blanket moratorium on sentencing. 

Jerome Flynn, federal community defender in Hammond, filed an objection to Van Bokkelen's motion. 

In his objection, Flynn wrote the government was seeking a "one-size-fits-all remedy for every case currently pending sentencing in this district." 

He felt the courts should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a sentencing should be delayed because not all cases would be affected one way or the other by Blakely. 

Van Bokkelen agreed not all cases would be affected, but he felt a blanket moratorium would prevent the inevitable invalidation of sentences if the Supreme Court decides to restructure or abolish the guidelines. 

Van Bokkelen's office declined to comment. 

In his order, Miller wrote that his decision would not prejudice requests to halt sentences in individual cases. 

Flynn said he was "happy the court decided to proceed forward." And he thought Miller's decision was a good indication that the majority of district judges believe the cases should be handled individually. 

Although the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled in July that Blakely did apply to federal cases, that court is still issuing sentences. 

Flynn said the district courts should follow the circuit court's lead. 

Although Miller's ruling prevents a blanket stay throughout the district, it does not prevent judges from halting all sentences in their own courtrooms. 

Federal Judge Theresa Springmann in Fort Wayne issued a blanket stay of all sentences in her court last month. 

But Flynn said he and his colleagues have been able to successfully show Blakely would not apply to some cases, and Springmann has gone ahead with those sentencings. 

Some high-profile Northwest Indiana residents are scheduled for sentencing this fall, including Kevin Pastrick for his role in the carpenters union real estate investment scheme. 

Flynn is hopeful the Supreme Court will "stay true to their logic" that applied in Blakely and abolish the guidelines. 

While many expect the Supreme Court to at least restructure the guidelines, it might be a lengthy discussion. The court was virtually split on the Blakely decision, which ended in a 5-4 vote.