ILNews

Judges to use discretion – not checklists – when imposing sentences, 7th Circuit rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant’s contention that the District Court should have considered all the mitigating factors during his sentencing was characterized by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as turning sentencing discussions into “checklist exercises.”

Larry Hodge pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 115 years for multiple child pornography offenses by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. During his sentencing hearing, Hodge offered testimony of a psychiatrist who asserted Hodge’s criminal actions could be linked to the sexual abuse he suffered as a child and that he was unlikely to reoffend.

One month after being sentenced, Hodge appealed. He argued the District Court committed a procedural error because it did not comment on the psychiatrist’s conclusions about Hodge’s premature sexualization and potential for rehabilitation.

However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. In United States of America v. Larry F. Hodge, 12-2458, it affirmed the sentence.

The 7th Circuit held the District Court met the standard of addressing the principal, nonfrivolous arguments in mitigation. The lower court concluded the most noteworthy aspects of the psychiatrist’s testimony for mitigation purposes were his statements regarding Hodge’s pornography addiction, childhood abuse and exposure to pornography at a young age. The decision not discuss other findings of the psychiatrist did not constitute a procedural error.

“Hodge’s favored approach would turn sentencing courts’ discussions of the (U.S.C.) 3553(a) factors into checklist exercises, depriving judges of their discretion in sifting through large amounts of evidence to determine which items are most relevant,” Judge John Tinder wrote for the court.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT