Gail V. U.S Case

Gall VS. US (2007) Case

        Brian Gall was invited by Luke Rinderknecht in February or March of 2000 to accomplice him in selling ecstasy (occasionally called MDMA by some people due to the fact that its scientific name is “methlenedioxymethamphetamine”). A few months or so Gall then became sober and quit using the drug ecstasy and then confronted Rinderknecht about resigning his involvement from the conspiracy. After quitting his involvement with selling ecstasy he then became more serious with his college and graduated from the University of Iowa in 2002. Gall started his career as a master carpenter and moved to Arizona, where the federal law enforcements questioned him about his past involvement with Kinderknecht. Three years after the crime was committed, he was sentenced to 36 months of probation.

        One majority opinion was that a judge must consider any departure from the Guidelines and must explain the appropriateness of any harsh or unusual sentence with specific justifications. The appellate court may take in account the degree of variance, and then also consider the extent of a deviation from the Guidelines. To determine if a judge supports eithers party’s proposal, he or she must consider each of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The judge must explain the sentence he has chosen for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.

        There were two concurring opinions of the case. Scalia stated that the court today will result in fewer unconstitutional sentences. Therefore the door remains open for a defendant to demonstrate that his sentence wouldn’t have been upheld but for the existence of a fact found by the sentencing judge and not the jury. Also, Souter believes the best resolution of tension would be a new Act of Congress. The dissenting opinion also had two different opinions. Thomas states that the District Court committed statutory error when it departed below the applicable Guidelines range. Alito believes the opinion of the Court of Appeals holds that the District Court didn’t properly exercise its sentencing discretion because it did not give sufficient weight to the policy decisions reflected from the Guidelines. The court stated five considerations of the sentencing: voluntary withdrawal from conspiracy, his behavior while on bond, family and friend support, lack of criminal background, age at time of offense. Alito believes that the Eighth circuit correctly interpreted and applied the standards set out in the Booker remedial opinions.

        The right to trial by jury should apply to sentencing. The Sixth amendment states that a defendant has the right to a jury, but not a judge. The jury varies the options by the defendant’s defenses, and that is based on the sentencing. The “fair” punishment that Gall deserves is the sentencing the judge gave him. Not only did he voluntarily resign from the conspiracy but he turned his life around and got his degree and became serious. After graduating college he got a well-paying job. Not once did he get into any other trouble. It is unfair to sentence Gall to jail when it was three years after the crime in which he was finally committed to 36 months probation.