Molina-Martinez v. United States (14-8913)

argument 14-8913

Molina-Martinez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 55 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of Molina‑Martinez v. United States regarding sentencing‑guidelines errors?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 1489-13, Molina-Martinez v. United States. Mr. Crooks?

Shawn Crooks 0:08

MR. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, as this Court recognized in Pew v. United States, the United States sentencing guidelines remain uniquely central to Federal sentencing, even where the District Court ultimately chooses to sentence outside the guidelines. Because of the strong anchoring effect of the guidelines, as also recognized in Pew, the natural effect of an erroneously high guideline range is to skew a defendant's sentence higher than it would have been under the correct range. Yet when the district court has elected descendants within what it believes to be the correct range, it is typically very difficult to determine what the district court would have done had it been presented with the correct lower range.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:58

JUSTICE GINSBERG. Mr. Crooks, you didn't cite 18 U.S.C. 3742 . And I wondered why, because it reads, if the Court of Appeals determines that the sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, the Court shall remand the case for further sentencing proceedings with such instructions as the Court considers appropriate. So this seems to say that if there was an incorrect application of the guidelines, then a remand is mandatory.

Shawn Crooks 1:41

It does appear to say that, Justice Ginsburg. However, I believe in this Court's decision in Williams v. United States, the Court said that Guideline errors are nonetheless subject to the normal doctrines of harmless and plain error review and not subject to automatic reversal.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:01

And so it's not clear that there was a guidelines violation here. The guidelines were incorrectly calculated, but it's not clear that at the end of the day there was a violation. I mean, is that really your response to Justice Ginsburg, or am I oversimplifying?

Shawn Crooks 2:16

There was a misapplication of the guidelines, but harmless and plain error doctrines apply to determine the remedy for that violation or misapplication.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:27

Well, there was a miscalculation. I'm not sure if there was a misapplication. I suppose that's the issue in the case. Or is this quibble wrong?

Shawn Crooks 2:40

Well, we believe that there was a misapplication because the guidelines were incorrectly calculated and with respect to the defendant's criminal history. And that is the type of thing that the statute Justice Ginsburg was referring to says you should remand for subject, of course, as this Court said in Williams, to the normal doctrines of harmless and plain error. And we're here today, of course, on a plain error case because we have a guideline misapplication that unfortunately was not discovered by anyone below.

Samuel A. Alito 3:16

Will you say that when there is a miscalculation of the guidelines range, that should give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the miscalculation affected the sentence that the judge imposed? That's correct,

Shawn Crooks 3:32

Justice. What does that

Samuel A. Alito 3:32

mean? Does that mean that the burden of persuasion shifts to the prosecution?

Shawn Crooks 3:39

We believe that the Court's opinion in Alano actually supports the a conceptualization that it simply gives the defendant an alternative way to satisfy his burden of persuasion, which is done in a generalized rather than a case-specific way.

Samuel A. Alito 3:57

Suppose there's no evidence, as may very often be the case. Suppose the judge says, imposes a sentence within what the judge believes to be the guideline range, but says nothing whatsoever beyond that. And it turns out that that is not the correct guidelines range, so that there's no evidence one way or the other about what the judge would have done had the judge understood the correct guidelines range. What outcome in that situation?

Shawn Crooks 4:30

In that situation, typically the result would be that the third prong of plain error review would be satisfied and the defendant would have shown an effect on his substantial rights.

Samuel A. Alito 4:42

MR. So that means that the burden of persuasion in that situation is on the prosecution?

Shawn Crooks 4:48

MR. Again, we may be quibbling about terms, but we believe that the defendant satisfies his burden of persuasion with generalized evidence tending to show the — that the natural effect of a guideline error is to affect the sentence.