Pharms v. United States Brief: Judges Shouldn’t Sentence People for Things the Jury Found They Didn’t Do
Keith Pharms was arrested and charged with five counts involving a gunfight between, among others, Mr. Pharms and a police officer. The jury was specifically asked whether Mr. Pharms fired a weapon. The jury said no.
Despite this finding, the district judge sentenced Mr. Pharms as if he had used a firearm, lengthening the sentence he could receive by at least four and a half years. This miscarriage of justice is part of a common practice called acquitted conduct sentencing.
Sentencing defendants based on conduct for which they were acquitted undermines the critical role that juries play in the American justice system in three ways. First, it undermines the historic discretion that our Anglo-American legal tradition gives to juries. Second, it prevents juries from serving their role as a check on potential government misconduct. Finally, it diminishes the legitimacy that involving the community in the criminal justice system provides.
The Cato Institute filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up this case and grant this petition for certiorari to end the practice of acquitted conduct sentencing.
