2002: Spotlight turns to crack cocaine sentencing
While public opinion may have turned against mandatory minimum sentencing, most efforts to change them continued to meet opposition in Congress and the Department of Justice.
In early 2002, the U.S. Sentencing Commission held hearings on proposed sentencing guideline amendments and crack cocaine penalties. Although 20 of 22 witnesses wanted to change the penalties, the Department of Justice issued a veiled threat that it would block any amendments to change crack penalties. Two months later the commission, instead of an amendment, sent a recommendation to Congress on how to improve crack penalties. (An amendment automatically changes guidelines unless Congress actively blocks it; a recommendation is simply a recommendation.) Finally, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs held a May hearing on federal cocaine sentencing policy. In the end, Congress failed to act upon either the Sessions-Hatch bill or the commission's recommendation. 38
Relief for least culpable drug offenders
But one sentencing commission amendment became law in November 2002. The amendment "capped" drug sentences for the least culpable drug offenders and helps 1,200-1,300 low-level drug offenders each year. It limited the exposure of low-level drug offenders to increased penalties based on drug quantity alone by putting a ceiling on the sentences of defendants who receive mitigating role adjustments. 39
Supreme Court upholds mandatory minimums
In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum scheme in a federal gun statute (Harris v. United States, 122 S.Ct. 2684, 2002). Noting the evils of mandatory minimum sentencing, the court signaled Congress to abandon such laws in the face of widespread criticism. 40 Two other 2002 Supreme Court cases involved the 2000 Apprendi ruling that any fact, except for prior offenses, increasing the maximum sentence beyond a crime's statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In United States v. Cotton the court ultimately declined to interpret the drug statute or declare it unconstitutional under Apprendi. 41 The court, in Ring v. Arizona, again confirmed a jury must determine an aggravating factor if the resulting sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. 42
Michigan ends mandatory sentencing
Michigan's failed experiment with mandatory minimum drug sentences ended Christmas Day, 2002, when Gov. John Engler signed historic legislation repealing the harshest schedule of drug penalties in the nation. The laws contain the most sweeping reforms of mandatory minimum drug laws enacted in the U.S. since the repeal of federal mandatory minimums in the 1970s. The laws took effect March 1, 2003. The laws replaced mandatory minimum sentences for major controlled substance offenses with sentencing guidelines, replaced lifetime probation with the standard five-year probationary period used for other serious crimes, and made many prisoners already serving mandatory minimum sentences eligible for parole much earlier. FAMM again played a leading role in bringing about the reform. 43