Sentencing Ruling

Re “Acquittals Can Boost Sentences, High Court Says,” Jan. 7: Once again, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has evinced its unmistakable proclivity to eliminate more of our defenses against governmental “broad discretion,” i.e., to punish a defendant based upon unproven charges by essentially vacating the not-guilty findings of a jury.

In a criminal case a person can be sentenced as if he were convicted on all the charges, based now on the lower civil case standard of “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Also lost, perhaps forever, is all substance to the constitutional guarantee that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... trial, by an impartial jury. . . .” A judge can supplant the jury’s not-guilty decision with his or her own secretive finding. And a few judges might do that!

The ruling makes a mockery of our justice system’s right to trial by jury. Equally disturbing is the inescapable conclusion that federal trial judges, rather than being the traditional neutral arbiters of the law, now may openly appear to be, or act, as active partners of federal prosecutors. It is also immoral in that it could coerce a truly innocent person to plead guilty without a trial. If this is the real intent, is this the America we want?

GEORGE C. BALDERAS

Corona