Judge to use guidelines

In what appears an effort to show Congress that federal judges can be trusted with their newfound freedom in sentencing criminal defendants, one Utah jurist said Thursday he intends to continue using federal guidelines "in all but the most unusual cases."

U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell issued his opinion in response to a Wednesday U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the 17-year-old guideline system as unconstitutional and approved their use for advisory purposes only.

In his first sentencing since the high court's decision, Cassell — who has been using the guidelines on an advisory basis since he declared the sentencing scheme unconstitutional last year — said he will continue to give the recommended sentences "considerable weight."

The result of Wednesday's decision, which invalidated the mandatory nature of the guidelines and allows judges to sentence defendants anywhere within the statutory range, is still unknown. Some sentencing experts have speculated that lawmakers, fearful of judges' increased discretion and interested in reducing disparate sentences for similar crimes, will respond by imposing mandatory minimum terms for most federal crimes.

Cassell apparently hoped to prevent such a reaction with his Thursday opinion, noting it could serve as guidance to his colleagues throughout the country who are also grappling with how to proceed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.

"The congressional view of how to structure that sentencing system will surely be informed by how judges respond to their newly granted freedom under the 'advisory' guidelines system," Cassell said. "If that discretion is exercised responsibly, Congress may be inclined to give judges greater flexibility under a new sentencing system.

"On the other hand, if that discretion is abused by sentences that thwart congressional objectives, Congress has ample power to respond with mandatory minimum sentences and the like."

Cassell became a very vocal critic of mandatory minimum sentences recently when he was forced to sentence 25-year-old Weldon Angelos, a first-time drug offender, to a mandated 55-year term.

Whatever Congress has in mind, Utah defense attorneys would like to see a system where the increased judicial discretion provided by this week's Supreme Court decision continues to some degree.