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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT