ILNews

US Supreme Court: Criminal fines require jury finding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An end-of-term U.S. Supreme Court decision did far more than reduce a penalty in a federal criminal environmental judgment from $18 million to $50,000. It created a new reality for how the government will have to pursue such prosecutions in the future, experts say.

A rare coalition of conservative and liberal justices ruled 6-3 in Southern Union Co. v. United States, 11–94, that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires a jury to determine facts to support a sentence imposed after a guilty verdict.

A jury found Houston-based utility company Southern Union guilty of improperly storing mercury in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the jury verdict that proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was established for just one day rather than the hundreds of days the government alleged, and the award was reduced to the maximum penalty for a single-day violation.
 

ryan-scott-mug.jpg Scott

Indiana University Maurer School of Law associate professor Ryan Scott watched the case and narrated a podcast for the Federalist Society website that analyzed the Southern Union opinion. He said the justices extended to federal criminal fines the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that states, “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“This is definitely a win for the defendants,” Scott told the Indiana Lawyer. “That said, the history of Apprendi is one of the Supreme Court recognizing more and more expansive jury rights and the government responding with great resilience.”

In essence, experts said, juries will have to determine factors such as lengths of violations for sentences involving fines on a “per day/per violation” basis, or losses and potential penalties in federal fraud cases. A simple guilty verdict such as that in Southern Union no longer is sufficient to allow a judge to use his or her discretion in levying criminal fines.

“I think the public assumes that the right to ‘trial by jury’ has already been fully defined by the federal courts. But we continue to discover new aspects to this constitutional guarantee,” said Jeff Lorenzo, a Seymour attorney who writes the Indiana Environmental Law Report blog.

He said the decision was overshadowed by SCOTUS rulings on health care and immigration, but, “this is one those cases that talks about issues that are essential to the disposition of justice.”

Southern Union is important for a couple of reasons. It represents an important win for corporate defendants in criminal cases. Since corporations can’t be imprisoned, they are more likely to be punished by large fines. This is particularly true in the environmental practice area because the potential damages to land, air and water are so significant and cleanup costs so imposing,” Lorenzo explained. 

“Beyond that, prosecutors (and courts) will have to ascertain the appropriate mechanisms to obtain a jury decision on the most important and critical facts relevant to augmented sentences,” he said.

That’s likely to mean that prosecutors will have to seek a special verdict from juries that makes specific findings on each count in which a guilty verdict is rendered, Scott and Lorenzo said. It also might require bifurcated trials involving jury determinations of guilt followed by proceedings to determine sentencing criteria on which a judge will rule.

The decision in Southern Union affects a small number of cases, according to Scott, but they often are high-profile matters where potential fines are great. “The distribution of who makes a determination (of sentencing criteria) is very significant,” he said.

Scott believes potentially protracted jury proceedings required under the ruling also might give defendants more leverage.

“You can bet defendants will use the fact that this is an inconvenience,” he said. But he noted the government has been quick to respond to requirements of Apprendi.


lorenzo-jeff-mug.jpg Lorenzo

“I think what’s most likely to happen is the government will continue to charge in a case just as it’s always done, and this will be a feature of discussion,” he said of the rule of Apprendi. Because most cases settle, “it will become the sort of thing the government negotiates.”

In cases that do proceed to trial, judges might find themselves unable to constitutionally impose a fine greater than that allowed under a jury’s general verdict of guilty, Scott said. They’ll have to determine whether further jury determination is warranted, given the time and cost involved. “They may not feel it’s worth the candle and impose a smaller fine.”

But Southern Union also is likely to sharpen the government’s focus in prosecuting environmental and fraud cases. “I expect indictments will be a little more refined,” Scott said.

Jon Laramore, a partner with Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis, said the ruling was a logical extension of Apprendi.

“Now that we know there are these requirements for fines, prosecutors will be able to take some relatively simple measures to anticipate this issue and in many cases keep it from becoming a problem,” he said.

Lorenzo predicted that the difficulty of proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt relevant to sentencing could pose practical hardships.

“Prosecutors may consider delaying filing until they have the evidence they are going to need to get the fines they consider appropriate,” he wrote. 

Lorenzo said a new body of caselaw might develop from the Southern Union decision, and legislation will likely be introduced in Congress and state legislatures in response to the ruling.

Scott said the case also provided an intriguing glimpse at how the newest justices ­– President Barack Obama’s appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – would rule on a case involving Apprendi, which the court decided in a 5-4 ruling with a majority across the political spectrum in 2000.

Sotomayor wrote the opinion that was joined by Kagan and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the court’s liberal wing, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Scott said the government had hoped that Apprendi had hit a high-water mark in 2009. That’s when a 5-4 Supreme Court appeared to set back the Apprendi rule in Oregon v. Ice, 07-901. There, the court ruled judges were not prohibited from finding facts to determine whether sentences on different offenses should be served concurrently or consecutively.

“Nothing surprises me in the Apprendi line of cases,” Scott said. “You have such a scramble of justices. … They don’t break down on predictable ideological lines.”

Lorenzo said justices left open other questions. Southern Union seems to suggest that Apprendi may apply to any penalties inflicted by the government for the commission of offenses, he explained. Also left for future consideration: “When does an offense rise beyond the level of ‘non-petty’ and become substantial enough to invoke the Apprendi rule?”

Scott also sees more Apprendi questions arising. The jury trial right could be a matter for the courts to decide in cases involving restitution determinations and in matters where asset forfeiture is ordered, he said.•

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. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT