8th Circuit judgment 'clouded by wicked weed'
So asks Doug Berman in a fantastic post on U.S. v. Chauncey, in which he describes the 8th Circuit's decision to uphold a pre-Booker sentence of 100 months for less than two ounces of marijuana. (Hat-tip to Mike Cernovich, who authored one of the Ashcroft v. Raich blogs). Berman writes:
"The defendant in Chauncey, as a result of a criminal history leading to his classification as a career offender, received a sentence of 100 months after being convicted of possessing with intent to distribute less than two ounces of marijuana. According to Judge [Donald P.] Lay's dissent, 'Chauncey's undisputed purpose was to help [his friend] obtain marijuana to alleviate the painful effects of her multiple sclerosis.' ... In a spirited dissent, Judge Lay argues that 100 months for Chauncey's offense violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. ... Disappointingly, Judge Lay's dissent does not engage the issue of reasonableness after Booker (although surely he believes the sentence is unreasonable as well as unconstitutional)."
Posted by Laurel Newby on August 26, 2005 at 04:37 PM | Permalink
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 8th Circuit judgment 'clouded by wicked weed':