The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, February 23, 1998
Decision: Tuesday, April 28, 1998
Issues: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Narcotics

Advocates

Edward C. DuMont (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)
Steven Shobat (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

At Vincent Edwards, Reynolds A. Wintersmith, Horace Joiner, Karl V. Fort, and Joseph Tidwell's trial for "conspiring" to "possess with intent to...distribute [mixtures containing two] controlled substances," the jury was instructed that the Government must prove that the conspiracy involved measurable amounts of "cocaine or cocaine base (crack)." After the jury returned guilty verdicts, the District Judge imposed sentences based on his finding that each petitioners' illegal conduct involved both cocaine and crack. On appeal, the petitioners argued that their sentences were unlawful insofar as they were based upon crack, because the word "or" in the jury instruction meant that the judge must assume that the conspiracy involved only cocaine. The United States Sentencing Guidelines treats cocaine more leniently than crack. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Guidelines require the sentencing judge, not the jury, to determine both the kind and the amount of the drugs at issue in a drug conspiracy.

Question

May federal judges sentence someone convicted of taking part in a drug conspiracy based on a finding that two illegal drugs were involved, even if the jury might have convicted based on one drug?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that "the judge was authorized to determine for sentencing purposes whether crack, as well as cocaine, was involved in the offense-related activities." Justice Breyer wrote for the Court that "[t]he Sentencing Guidelines instruct the judge in a case like this one to determine both the amount and the kind of 'controlled substances' for which a defendant should be held accountable -- and then to impose a sentence that varies depending upon amount and kind. Consequently, regardless of the jury's actual, or assumed, beliefs about the conspiracy, the Guidelines nonetheless require the judge to determine whether the 'controlled substances' at issue -- and how much of those substances -- consisted of cocaine, crack, or both."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 18 U.S.C. App.
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511 (1998),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_8732/>
(last visited ).