Byline: David Ziemer
It has long been an open question in the Seventh Circuit whether a trial court's finding of fact at sentencing can have such a significant impact on the defendant's sentence that the standard of proof must be clear and convincing, rather than a mere preponderance, lest the "tail wag the dog."
On Sept. 19, the court held the issue moot, because the guidelines are now only advisory.
In the case, Christopher Reuter pleaded guilty in Illinois federal court to conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs. The top of the guidelines range for the offense would have been 105 months in prison, had the judge not found at the sentencing hearing that Reuter had committed a murder in the course of the conspiracy.
This finding, among other adjustments, raised Reuter's guidelines range to 360 to 480 months. The judge sentenced him to 360 months, and Reuter appealed.
Reuter's attorney filed an Anders brief, arguing that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for an appeal.
In the Anders brief, Reuter's attorney asserted that...
