U.S. v. Cotton, Leonard, et al. (05/20/2002)

By: Natalie Shepherd, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence requires a court of appeals automatically to vacate the enhanced sentence, notwithstanding that the defendant did not object to the sentence in the district court, the government introduced overwhelming proof of the fact that supports the enhanced sentence, and the defendant had notice that the fact could be used to seek an enhanced sentence.

Brief

Boonie bought kilos of cocaine and cocaine base from a dealer in New York.

He would then ""cook"" the cocaine base into what is commonly known as crack. Afterwards, Cooch, Sprinkles, Butt Naked, Tree and Weedy sold the drugs. Together they ran a lucrative business on N. Duncan Street in Baltimore.

When federal agents obtained search warrants for several residences thought to be used in dealing drugs in October of 1997, they found a lot of drugs.

In March 1998, a federal grand jury in Baltimore indicted Stuart Hall Jr. (a/k/a Boonie), Leonard Cotton (a/k/a Cooch) and five other defendants on one count of conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine and crack.

Prosecutors attributed to each of the defendants at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, which is thirty times the amount necessary to allow for a sentence of life in prison. The jury was instructed to ""not be concerned with the [drug] quantities, so long as you find that a defendant conspired to distribute or possessed with intent to distribute these controlled substances."" They found the defendants guilty.

Five of the defendants were sentenced to life in prison. Two others were sentenced to thirty years. Usually, the maximum sentence for the charge is 20 years, but enhanced sentencing guidelines allowed the judge to increase the defendants sentences.

In the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the defendants argued their clients sentences were invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey.

In 2000, the Supreme Court in Apprendi held that an ""indictment must contain an allegation of every fact which is legally essential to the punishment to be inflicted."" And, while no one in the Cotton case argued that the defendants didnt have a copious amount of cocaine, their sentences were reduced to ""not more than 20 years.""

A divided 4th Circuit panel agreed that the enhanced sentences were for a crime for which the defendants were never indicted.

""The failure to charge a specific threshold drug quantity in the indictment and to submit the quantity issue to the jury constitutes plain error,"" Judge J. Michael Luttig stated. Since the grand jury indictment didnt say exactly how much cocaine each defendant had, they couldnt be sentenced to life in prison. They were never tried for a crime that would constitute such a punishment.

Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who disagreed with part of the courts decision, wrote that the defendants punishments should stand, stating ""it would constitute a manifest injustice to reduce these defendants sentences when the evidence undeniably demonstrates that they committed the greater statutory error."" Wilkinson wrote that the evidence in the case made it obvious the defendants did have enough drugs to receive the life sentences they got.

In the U.S.s petition for the certiorari to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor Generals office disagreed with the appeals courts decision that ""a sentence that exceeds the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on a fact that was not alleged in the indictment ... must automatically be overturned on plain error review.""

Thomas Saunders, lawyer for Leonard Cotton, conceded that the Apprendi decision has opened a caseload of worms.

""The Supreme Court is really going to have to ask, Ôwhat did we do with Apprendi? in this case,"" Saunders said. ""They are really going to have to play out this issue.""

On Jan. 4, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and allowed Cotton and the other respondents to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 20, 2002, a unanimous Court reversed, holding that defendants do not necessarily have to be retried because of mistakes in their indictments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court.