Fairness of Crack Cocaine Sentencing Fundamental to Oct. 2 Supreme Court Case

[Courtesy of The Sentencing Project] At a time of heightened public awareness regarding excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a case that touches on the controversial crack cocaine sentencing debate. The case, Kimbrough v. United States, explores the reasonableness of a federal district judge's below-guideline sentencing decision based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1 quantity disparity between powder and crack cocaine. The Sentencing Project submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner, Derrick Kimbrough, which argues that current drug guidelines inappropriately limit the factors that judges may consider at sentencing. Mr. Kimbrough's case stems from his 2005 guilty plea in Norfolk, VA, for possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm. Kimbrough, a Desert Storm veteran with no previous felony convictions, was prosecuted in federal court where penalties involving crack cocaine are harsher than in state systems. As a result, instead of receiving a sentence of about 10 years under Virginia law, he faced a federal sentencing guideline range between 19 and 22 years. Federal District Judge Raymond A. Jackson, who presided over Kimbrough's case, called the recommended guideline sentence "ridiculous" and instead sentenced Kimbrough to 15 years, the minimum required by mandatory sentencing policies. Tomorrow, the Court will consider whether Judge Jackson's decision was "reasonable" according to federal sentencing standards. For more information, visit www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform or download the amicus brief at http://sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/dp_kimbrough.pdf.