US v. Jennings: Jennings pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police arrived at a party responding to a noise complaint and heard shots fired (recovered casings matched the gun Jennings had in his possession). At sentencing, Jennings allocated by speaking “at length about how alcoholism had impacted his life and contributed to his criminality,” after which he “read a poem he had written to the court,” as well as a “prepared speech wherein he thanked his defense attorney and again explained how alcohol contributed to his criminal history.”
The district court interrupted Jennings twice to ask clarifying questions. When Jennings said he “don’t hurt or bother or disrespect random people,” the district court interjected “you shot somebody . . . What does it mean you don’t bother random people?” Then, during Jennings’ poem, the district court stopped him to ask, after one particular line, “Wait a minute. Did you just say emotion, clothes, weather, money?” The district court asked more questions, after which Jennings “asked to read a letter he had written to his mother.” The district court declined (“you’ll see your mother”) and imposed a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Jennings’ sentence. It rejected the argument that the district court’s questioning, and refusal to let Jennings read the letter to his mother, was an abuse of discretion that restricted the right to allocution. The court concluded that the district court’s questions did not “terminate” the allocution and that the district court asked “clarifying questions” and “allowed [Jennings] to continue speaking after these questions and did not cut him off.” As for the letter, it was “not addressed the court” and did not include anything that Jennings had not already said.
No comments:
Post a Comment