US v. Lombard
Case Date: 12/15/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-2000
|
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 94-2000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. HENRY LOMBARD, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jay _______________ ___ P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, was on brief, for the United ____________ States. Jane E. Lee, by appointment of the court, for appellant. ___________ ____________________ December 15, 1995 ____________________ LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Henry Lombard, Jr. and LYNCH, Circuit Judge. ______________ Hubert Hartley were tried separately in the Maine Superior Court in 1992 on charges of murdering two men. Each was acquitted. Afterward, Lombard and Hartley were indicted as co-defendants in the federal district court in Maine on federal firearms and other charges arising out of the murders. Hartley pleaded guilty at mid-trial, but appellant Lombard entrusted his fate to the jury. He was convicted. At sentencing, under the Guidelines, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Lombard had used his illegally possessed firearm to commit "another offense": the same murders of which he had been acquitted in the state court. The resulting Guidelines sentence was a mandatory term of life in prison, which Maine law would not _________ have required even had defendant been convicted of the murders. Lombard thus received a life sentence based on the federal court's finding that it was more likely than not that Lombard had committed the murders of which he had been acquitted. The sentencing judge was greatly troubled but felt as a matter of law that he had no authority to do otherwise under the Guidelines. Lombard appeals the mandatory life sentence and his convictions. We affirm the convictions for the reasons stated later. We address first the very troubling sentencing issue. Finding that this is a case in which the life -2- 2 sentence enhancement is the "tail which wags the dog" of defendant's trial and conviction, thus raising constitutional due process concerns, we hold that under section 5K2.0 of the Guidelines the district court had the authority, which it thought it had not, to consider a downward departure. We vacate the life sentence and remand for a determination of whether a downward departure might be warranted in the unique circumstances here. I Background __________ On Thanksgiving morning of 1990, Morris Martin and Paul Lindsey, Jr. were murdered, each shot in the head as he lay sleeping in the living room of a small cabin in the backwoods of Fairfield, Maine. The cabin was owned by Hubert Hartley, the half-brother of the defendant Henry Lombard. All four men had been living in the cabin for a week to hunt deer in the surrounding woods. Tammy Theriault, Hartley's girlfriend, had also been living in the cabin, along with her eighteen month old daughter. She was also pregnant with Hartley's child at the time. Theriault was a near-eyewitness to the murders, able to hear and observe much through a hole in the floor of her upstairs bedroom. Lombard and Hartley were tried separately on state charges of murder before two juries in the Maine Superior Court. Each defendant testified in his own defense and -3- 3 claimed that the other had committed the murders. Hartley and Theriault testified against Lombard at Lombard's trial. Both state trials resulted in acquittals. One year later, a federal grand jury returned an indictment in the U.S. District Court, charging Hartley and Lombard with unlawful possession of a firearm, aiding and abetting the same, and with conspiracy charges relating to the aftermath of the murders.1 Lombard and Hartley were tried jointly in the federal district court. The prosecution's key witness was Tammy Theriault. Her testimony departed in some respects from the testimony and statements she gave earlier. She testified, as follows, that although she did not see the murders being committed, she did hear conversations between Hartley and Lombard just before and after the gunshots were fired. At about 10 a.m. on Thanksgiving morning, Lombard and Hartley returned to the cabin from a morning hunt. Martin and Lindsey were asleep on ____________________ 1. Count 1 of the indictment charged Hartley and Lombard with a multi-part conspiracy with the following objectives: unlawfully to possess and aid and abet the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); to cross state lines with intent to avoid prosecution or avoid giving testimony in a criminal proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1073; and to remove and transport from Hartley's cabin certain evidence of Lombard's unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2232(a). Count 2 charged Lombard with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 924(e). Count 3 charged Hartley with aiding and abetting Lombard in the unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)-(2). -4- 4 couches in the living room. Hartley, seeing Theriault, told her to go back upstairs because he and Lombard "had something to do." On returning to her room, she heard Lombard say to Hartley, "[I]f you don't shoot him, I'm going to shoot 'em both." Next, Theriault, still upstairs with her baby daughter, heard five or six gunshots, followed by Lombard's exclamation, "I didn't think you had the guts to do it." Hartley boasted, "I showed you, didn't I?" and added, "I don't think he's dead yet. Shoot him again." Lombard and Hartley stuffed the victims' bodies in garbage bags, as Theriault watched through the hole in her bedroom floor. Theriault was with Lombard and Hartley as they cleaned the cabin of blood and other evidence, and hid the bodies temporarily in the cellar. The next day, as the two men were attempting to move the bodies to the trunk of Hartley's car, Theriault's family arrived to bring Thanksgiving leftovers. They sat visiting in the living room, with one victim's body hidden in the trunk of Hartley's car outside, the other still in the cellar. Theriault accompanied Lombard and Hartley when they later went to dump both bodies in a roadside bog. She was also present when Lombard sold his Marlin .22 caliber rifle as well as the victims' two hunting guns to a broker. Lombard and Hartley were planning to flee from Maine to Massachusetts just before they were arrested. -5- 5 Excerpts of testimony that Hartley and Lombard had given in their state court murder trials were also admitted into evidence. These excerpts (including Lombard's own prior testimony) corroborated much of Theriault's account and established that Lombard owned a Marlin .22 caliber rifle which he had brought to Hartley's cabin, that he loaded it on the morning of Thanksgiving Day, 1990, that he took the gun with him to go hunting that morning, and that Lombard and Hartley together attempted to clean the bloody cabin following the murders, removed evidence of the murders, disposed of the bodies, and planned to flee from Maine. Other witnesses' testimony established that Lombard had reason to be aware that he could not lawfully possess a firearm, that he nonetheless purchased the .22 caliber rifle from Tammy Theriault's brother, and that the bullets that were recovered from the victims' bodies were consistent with having been fired from a .22 caliber rifle. Hartley pleaded guilty at the close of the government's case. Lombard, however, put his case to the jury (without presenting an affirmative case) and was convicted on both Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. At Lombard's sentencing, the court applied a cross- reference in the relevant provision of the Guidelines governing the firearms conviction (Count 2), which essentially provided that if Lombard's unlawfully possessed -6- 6 firearm had been used in the commission of a murder, his base offense level (BOL) on that conviction was to be determined by the same guideline applicable to a conviction for murder. The court determined that the firearm had so been used. The resulting BOL required a term of life imprisonment, and Lombard was sentenced accordingly. II The Sentence ____________ Lombard raises two challenges to the sentence imposed by the district court. He contends that the life sentence was imposed in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause.2 He also argues, to no avail, that he was ____________________ 2. As a preliminary matter, we reject the government's assertion that the defendant did not properly preserve this issue for appeal. The issue of whether and in what way the murders of which Lombard had been acquitted could properly be considered at sentencing was adequately presented to and squarely addressed by the district court. As the court itself stated: The key issue in this sentencing, of course, is whether or not premeditated murder is the object offense in connection with which the firearms were unlawfully possessed. . . . Resolution of this issue is particularly difficult because of the fact that both defendants, Mr. Lombard and Mr. Hartley, were acquitted of first degree murder charges in the state court . . . . The suggestion made by counsel for Mr. Lombard quite appropriately is how could the object offense in deriving the calculation of the appropriate guideline in determining the sentence in this case be calculated on the basis of crimes for which the defendant has been acquitted albeit in state court? And that's the central core issue that has been troubling me throughout this process since the -7- 7 erroneously denied credit under the Guidelines for his acceptance ofresponsibility forthe firearms andflight crimes. A. Calculation of the Guidelines Sentence ______________________________________ Lombard received a life sentence as a thrice-prior convicted felon ostensibly for his unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(e).3 He was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 60 months for the conviction on the conspiracy count, concurrent with the life sentence.4 Lombard does not contend here that the district ___ court incorrectly applied the Guidelines in determining his life sentence, but rather argues that the manner in which the ____________________ trial and during the presentence conferences and reviewing the presentence report and the transcripts. 3. Section 922(g)(1) provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce [paragraph structure omitted]." Section 924(e)(1) provides: "In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g)." 4. Lombard has not appealed the sentence on the conspiracy conviction. -8- 8 Guidelines, as applied by the court, required it to conduct its factfinding and mandated the life sentence violated his constitutional rights. The specific guideline applicable to the defendant's firearms conviction is U.S.S.G. 2K2.1.5 Subsection (a)(2) of the 1990 version of section 2K2.1 sets a BOL of 12 "if the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) . . . ."6 The "cross-reference" provision of subsection (c)(2) of section 2K2.1 directs that "[i]f the defendant used or possessed the firearm in connection with commission or attempted commission of another offense, apply 2X1.1 . . . in respect to that other offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above." U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(2) (Nov. 1990). Treating the murders as "another offense," and finding by a preponderance ____________________ 5. Although the November 1993 version of the Guidelines was in effect at the time of Lombard's sentencing, the district court applied the 1990 version, apparently to avoid any ex __ post facto concerns. See United States v. Aymelek, 926 F.2d ____ _____ ___ _____________ _______ 64, 66 n.1 (1st Cir. 1991). The outcome (a mandatory life sentence) would not have been different had any later version of the Guidelines been applied. All citations to the Guidelines are to the 1990 version, unless otherwise noted. 6. An unadjusted BOL of 12 (given defendant's criminal history category of VI) would have translated into a sentence of 30-37 months. However, because defendant was sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e), which provides for a 15-year minimum, his total offense level could not have been any lower than 34, even apart from consideration of the murders. See U.S.S.G. 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). ___ That offense level would have translated into a Guidelines sentencing range of 262-327 months. -9- 9 of the evidence that the defendant had committed that other offense, the court applied section 2X1.1, which directed the defendant's BOL to be set at "[t]he base offense level from the guideline for the object offense . . . ." U.S.S.G. 2X1.1(a) (Nov. 1990). The "object offense" was first degree murder, to which a BOL of 43 attaches.7 See U.S.S.G. ___ 2A1.1. Finding no basis for awarding acceptance-of- responsibility credit, the district court assigned a total offense level of 43. Because Lombard was sentenced as a career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e), there was a statutory minimum of 15 years, but no stated statutory maximum applicable; thus no reduction was indicated under U.S.S.G. 5G1.1(a) (which requires adjustment of a Guidelines sentence to comply with the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction). The defendant's final Guidelines ____________________ 7. The same result would obtain under the current version of the Guidelines. The November 1991 amendment to section 2K2.1(c) created a specific provision for cases in which the underlying offense conduct is found to have resulted in death. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 374. The cross- ___ reference, as amended, provides as follows: (1) If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission or attempted commission of another offense, . . . apply . . . (B) if death resulted, the most analogous offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A, Subpart 1 (Homicide), if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above. U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) (Nov. 1995). -10- 10 sentence was a mandatory term of life imprisonment. See ___ U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (assigning life sentence to BOL of 43 for all criminal history categories). B. The Life Sentence _________________ The mandatory imposition of a life sentence here raises questions of whether such a result was strictly intended by the Sentencing Guidelines and whether the method followed to produce that result comports with the Due Process Clause. Our focus is on the process by which the result was reached. Lombard makes no claim, nor could he, on the facts here that imposition of a life sentence on him (accompanied by due process) would itself be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. ________ ________ 957 (1991). The life sentence resulted from the convergence of several doctrines in sentencing law, each individually well accepted, and none of which individually is questionable here. But just as folk wisdom recognizes that the whole is often greater and different than simply the sum of its parts, these individual doctrines, each reflecting compromises in our criminal jurisprudence, in this extreme case threaten in combination to erode rights that the Constitution does not permit to be compromised. We take as given that once convicted, a defendant has no right under the Due Process Clause to have his sentencing determination be confined to facts proved beyond a -11- 11 reasonable doubt. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 ________ ____________ (1986); United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 34 F.3d 19, 25 _____________ ________________ (1st Cir. 1994). A sentencing court's operative factfinding is generally subject only to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. See United States v. LaCroix, 28 F.3d ___ ______________ _______ 223, 231 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Mocciola, 891 F.2d _____________ ________ 13, 17 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d _____________ ______ 437, 441 (1st Cir. 1989). But cf. United States v. Kikumura, ___ ___ _____________ ________ 918 F.2d 1084, 1102 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that "clear and convincing" standard applies in certain limited circumstances). Nor is a sentencing court limited to considering only the conduct of which the defendant was formally charged or convicted. Even before the advent of the Guidelines, some sentencing courts took into account any information known to them, including uncharged relevant conduct. See, e.g., Nichols v. United States, 114 S. Ct. __________ _______ _____________ 1921, 1928 (1994); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 ________ ________ (1949); United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 387-88 (2d _____________ __________ Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 163 (1993). ____________ The Guidelines were not intended to discontinue the courts' historical practice of considering the relevant circumstances of the defendant's real conduct, whether those circumstances were specifically charged or not. See United ___ ______ States v. Jackson, 3 F.3d 506, 509 (1st Cir. 1993); Wright, ______ _______ ______ 873 F.2d at 441; see generally Stephen Breyer, The Federal _____________ ____________ -12- 12 Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises Upon Which They _____________________________________________________________ Rest, 17 Hofstra L. Rev. 1, 8-12 (1988). As now-Justice ____ Breyer noted, the Guidelines evince a compromise between a pure "charge offense" system in which sentences are determined based solely upon conduct of which a defendant is convicted, and a "real offense" system, in which sentences are fashioned in view of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors surrounding the defendant's conduct. See ___ id. A sentencing court may, therefore, consider relevant ___ conduct of the defendant for purposes of making Guidelines determinations, even if he has not been charged with and indeed, even if he has been acquitted of that conduct, so _________ long as the conduct can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70, 80 (1st ___ _____________ ________ Cir. 1993) (reasoning that failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not preclude proof by a preponderance of the evidence), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1644 (1994); ____________ Jackson, 3 F.3d at 509; Mocciola, 891 F.2d at 17. Resolution _______ ________ of this case does not require the questioning of any of these general rules but does involve recognition that there may be limits to their application. Both the Supreme Court and this court have recognized that the Due Process Clause itself imposes limits on the application of these doctrines in extreme cases, and we must interpret the Guidelines in light of those -13- 13 constraints. This court recognized in United States v. _____________ Rivera, 994 F.2d 942 (1st Cir. 1993), that there is a range ______ of discretion left to the district courts even within the Linnaean categorizations of the Guidelines. We hold, under Rivera, that the district court did have discretion here, ______ which it thought it had not, to consider a downward departure from the life sentence. Accordingly, we remand. 1. The Tail That Wags the Dog __________________________ The Supreme Court decisions on sentencing, while generally endorsing rules that permit sentence enhancements to be based on conduct not proved to the same degree required to support a conviction, have not embraced the concept that those rules are free from constitutional constraints. On the contrary, the Court has cautioned against permitting a sentence enhancement to be the "tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense." McMillan, 477 U.S. at 88. ________ McMillan involved a challenge to a Pennsylvania ________ statute that imposed a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years for a defendant found at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence to have "visibly possessed a firearm" in connection with his offense of conviction. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Due Process Clause. See McMillan, 477 U.S. at 92. ("[W]e have ___ ________ consistently approved sentencing schemes that mandate consideration of facts related to the crime, . . . without -14- 14 suggesting that those facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." (citation omitted)). The Court did, however, take pains to place limits upon its holding: [The challenged statute] operates solely to limit the sentencing court's discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm. [The statute] "ups the ante" for the defendant only by raising to five years the minimum sentence which may be imposed within the statutory plan. The statute gives no impression of having been tailored to permit the visible possession finding to be a tail which ______________ wags the dog of the substantive offense. _______________________________________ Id. at 88 (emphasis added). ___ Here, in contrast, the tail has wagged the dog. The consideration of the murders at Lombard's sentencing upstaged his conviction for firearms possession. The circumstances of this case that have combined to produce this effect raise grave constitutional concerns, although each doctrine considered separately might not provoke a second thought. Cf. United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1195- ___ _____________ _________ 96 (1st Cir. 1993) (circumstances that individually might not warrant appellate relief "may in the aggregate have a more debilitating effect" and that a cumulation of circumstances "may sometimes have a logarithmic effect, producing a total impact greater than the arithmetic sum of its constituent parts"), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2714 (1994). ____________ -15- 15 The effect here has been to permit the harshest penalty outside of capital punishment to be imposed not for conduct charged and convicted but for other conduct as to which there was, at sentencing, at best a shadow of the usual procedural protections such as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This other conduct murder was surely of the most serious sort, but exactly the sort as to which our jurisprudence normally requires the government to meet its full burden of proof. When put to that proof in state court, the government failed. The punishment imposed in view of this other conduct far outstripped in degree and kind the punishment Lombard would otherwise have received for the offense of conviction. There was no safety valve, or so thought the trial judge, to adjust the Guidelines sentence of life imprisonment to assure consideration of the penalty imposed in light of the process followed. And that, in turn, raises questions as to whether Lombard received, as to his sentence, the process that the Constitution says was due. While we discuss individual concerns, we stress that it is the interplay amongst these concerns which is of import, and none of these concerns should be examined in isolation. We start with the paramount seriousness of the ostensibly "enhancing" conduct at issue. A charge of murder represents the very archetype of conduct that "has historically been treated in the Anglo-American legal -16- 16 tradition as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt." McMillan, 477 U.S. at 90 (citation and quotation marks ________ omitted). Thus, a rule structure that bars conviction of a firearms charge except on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but then permits imposition of a life sentence upon proof of a murder by a preponderance of the evidence attaches, in effect, the lesser procedural protections to the issue that would naturally be viewed as having the greater significance. That anomaly is heightened by the specific manner in which the Guidelines operated here. Unlike certain "relevant conduct" guidelines that simply call for a determinate increase in a defendant's BOL based on specified factual findings, see, e.g., U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) (calling _________ for two-level increase in BOL for drug conviction upon a finding that a firearm was possessed), the cross-reference provision that was applied in this case, U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c), required the district court to calculate Lombard's BOL as if _____ his offense of conviction had been murder. See U.S.S.G. ___ 2K2.1(c), 2X1.1 (Nov. 1990).8 Particularly in light of the absence of any stated _____________________ statutory maximum for the firearms offense, see 18 U.S.C. __________________ ___ 924(e), the cross-reference to the first-degree murder ____________________ 8. The current version of the cross-reference is even more explicit, directing the court to apply, in cases where death resulted from the defendant's offense conduct, "the most analogous offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A, Subpart 1 (Homicide)." U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) (Nov. 1995). -17- 17 guideline essentially displaced the lower Guidelines range _________ that otherwise would have applied. As a result, the sentence to be imposed for Lombard's firearms conviction was the same as the sentence that would have been imposed for a federal murder conviction: a mandatory term of life. Despite the nominal characterization of the murders as conduct that was considered in "enhancing" or "adjusting" Lombard's firearms conviction, the reality is that the murders were treated as the gravamen of the offense. As the enhancing conduct in this case was serious, so too was the "enhancement." Attribution of the murders to Lombard operated not merely to ratchet up his prison term by some fractional increment, but rather wholly to remove the defendant's sentence from the term-of-years continuum and transform it into a life sentence without the prospect of parole. That punishment represents "the second most severe penalty known to the law," Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957, 996 (1991) ________ (Scalia, J.). It qualitatively differs from any lesser sentence in resting upon a determination that the "criminal conduct is so atrocious that society's interest in deterrence and retribution wholly outweighs any considerations of reform or rehabilitation of the perpetrator." Id. at 2719 (Stevens, ___ J., dissenting) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see ___ also Helm v. Solem, 684 F.2d 582, 585 (8th Cir. 1982) ("A ____ ____ _____ life sentence without parole differs qualitatively from a -18- 18 sentence for a term of years" because it represents the "total[] reject[ion] of rehabilitation as a basic goal of our criminal justice system."), aff'd, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). In _____ short, the enhancement at issue not only increased the duration of Lombard's sentence, but placed his punishment on an entirely different order of severity. This qualitative difference between the life sentence imposed and the term of years that Lombard might otherwise have received as a prior offender (262-327 months) implicates basic concerns of proportionality both between the enhancement and base sentence and between the offense and punishment as a whole. Even if these concerns, considered alone, might not rise fully to the level of constitutional significance, they further distinguish this case from less troubling ones. The comparative severity of the enhancement invites scrutiny of the weight given to factfinding as to ostensibly "enhancing" conduct (the murders) allocated to the sentencing phase, with its looser procedural constraints and lesser burden of proof. It raises the danger of the defendant's trial and conviction being turned into a means of achieving an end that could not be achieved directly: the imposition of a life sentence "enhancement" based on a federally unprosecutable murder. In its interaction with the other concerns we describe, there is also an issue as to the proportion between the gravity of Lombard's offense of -19- 19 conviction and the severity of his punishment. If a life sentence without parole is appropriate for murder, in most instances that sentence might appear to be harsh punishment for the unlawful possession of a rifle, even by a career criminal. While one may doubt whether there are Eighth Amendment concerns9 lurking here, cf. Harmelin, 501 U.S. at ___ ________ 997-1001 (Opinion of Kennedy, J.), the harshness of the life sentence in relation to the offense of conviction highlights the need for rigorous inquiry.10 Without impugning the principle that acquitted conduct may be considered in determining a defendant's sentence, the prior state court acquittal presents another concern in its interaction here. Lombard put the Maine government to its proof on the charges of murder against him, and a state court jury determined that reasonable doubt as to his guilt persisted. The federal prosecution followed on the heels of the acquittal. As the particular murders at issue ____________________ 9. Interestingly, the Constitution of the State of Maine contains an explicit proportionality guarantee: "[A]ll penalties and punishments shall be proportional to the offence." Me. Const. art. I, 9. Thus, it is a fair question whether the Maine Constitution would have permitted the resulting sentence here if Maine had done what the federal prosecution did. 10. It bears emphasis that the perceived severity of a sentence is not, standing alone, a basis for departing from the Guidelines sentencing range. United States v. Jackson, ______________ _______ 30 F.3d 199, 203-04 (1st Cir. 1994). Here, the magnitude of the sentence enhancement is of concern only when viewed in its interaction with the other aspects of this case. -20- 20 were outside the sphere of the federal prosecutor's criminal charging power as to murder,11 Lombard was not charged with murder in the federal indictment; the murders themselves were not alleged by the government to be an object of the defendants' conspiracy; and the federal jury was required to make no factual determination regarding the commission of the murders. Yet it would ignore reality not to recognize that the federal prosecution arose out of and was driven by the murders, and that the prosecution was well aware that the Sentencing Guidelines would require consideration of the murders at sentencing. This reality was reflected in the prosecution's statement at the pre-sentencing conference that "it was quite clear from the beginning; Mr. Lombard was looking at a life sentence." The government, by its own ____________________ 11. The government conceded at oral argument that Lombard and Hartley could not have been charged under any of the federal murder statutes. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1111, __________ 2113(e), 2118(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. 848(e). The murders did not take place on any federal installation, were not in connection with the robbery of a federally insured bank or a robbery involving federally controlled substances, nor were committed in the course of a continuing criminal enterprise as defined by federal law. Whether or not it could do so, the fact is that Congress has chosen not to federalize the state crime of murder in cases like Lombard's, and so has not authorized reprosecution for murder pursuant to the doctrine of separate sovereignties. See Abbate v. United States, 359 ___ ______ _____________ U.S. 187 (1959). Thus, the issue raised is not one of Double Jeopardy, nor, strictly speaking, of the reach of the federal power, but one of Due Process: whether the sentencing court is precluded from considering that the Sentencing Guidelines as applied, through the vehicle of sentence enhancement, effectively punishes the defendant for conduct as to which there exists no statutory authorization for the government even to prosecute. -21- 21 words, had intended "from the beginning" that consideration of the murders would result in a life sentence. Through the post-trial adjudication of the murders under a lesser standard of proof, the federal prosecution obtained precisely the result that the Maine state prosecutors attempted, but failed, to obtain. The federal prosecution may well have done better. The net effect of the Guidelines attribution of the murders to Lombard as understood by the district court was to mandate imposition of _______ a life sentence. This was the maximum that Lombard could _______ have received had he been convicted of murder in the Maine state court. See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 1251 ___ (setting minimum sentence of 25 years and maximum of life). Indeed, a state murder conviction might have yielded something less severe than a life sentence. See State v. St. ___ _____ ___ Pierre, 584 A.2d 618, 621-22 (Me. 1990) (vacating life ______ sentence and reducing sentence to term of 45 years, where although defendant "committed a brutal murder," the record failed to "establish behavior at the outermost portion of the range of cruelty that would constitute the aggravating circumstances of extreme cruelty").12 In any event, in no __ ____________________ 12. If Lombard had been convicted of murder in the Maine state court and received a sentence of a term of years, he would have been eligible to receive credit against time to be served under the "good time" provisions of state law, which are considerably more generous than similar federal provisions. Compare Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 1253(3) _______ (entitling any person sentenced to a term of more than six -22- 22 circumstances under Maine law would Lombard have been subject _____________ to a mandatory life sentence. See State v. Shortsleeves, 580 _________ ___ _____ ____________ A.2d 145, 149-50 (Me. 1990); St. Pierre, 584 A.2d at 621. __________ Although Lombard's firearms offense was the vehicle by which he was brought into the federal criminal justice system, the life sentence resulted from the district court's finding that the defendant had committed murder. Characterized in other terms, through the mechanisms of the Guidelines and accompanying legal doctrines, the sentencing phase of the defendant's trial produced the conclusion he had committed murder and mandated imposition of a life sentence, but without the protections which normally attend the criminal process, such as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the magnitude of the sentence "enhancement," the seriousness of the "enhancing" conduct in relation to the offense of conviction, and the seemingly mandatory imposition of the life sentence, this summary process effectively overshadowed the firearms possession charge and raises serious questions as to the proper allocation of the procedural protections attendant to trial versus sentencing. See United States v. Gigante, 39 F.3d 42, ___ _____________ _______ ____________________ months "to receive a deduction of 10 days each month for observing all rules of the department and institution") with ____ 18 U.S.C. 3624(b) (permitting up to 54 days of good time credit per year to prisoners serving terms of more than one year but less than life but allowing no such credit to persons serving a sentence for a crime of violence). -23- 23 47 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[W]e agree that there is a constitutional requirement of some rough proportionality between the weight of the evidence of the uncharged conduct and the degree of [the sentencing] adjustment . . . ."). We would be hard put to think of a better example of a case in which a sentence "enhancement" might be described as a "tail which wags the dog" of the defendant's offense of conviction. McMillan, 477 ________ U.S. at 88. The convergence of circumstances and processes that yielded Lombard's life sentence distinguishes this case from United States v. Mocciola, 891 F.2d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 1989), _____________ ________ and its progeny. Mocciola itself involved the attribution to ________ the defendant of an acquitted firearms offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1)13 and rejected the contention that consideration of the acquitted conduct (under a preponderance of the evidence standard) was unconstitutional. Id. (quoting ___ McMillan, 477 U.S. at 91, and Wright, 873 F.2d at 441). The ________ ______ acquitted conduct considered in Mocciola, a firearms offense, ________ was well within the sphere of ordinary federal prosecution. The consideration of the acquitted conduct in Mocciola had a ________ ____________________ 13. The defendant had pleaded guilty on a cocaine conspiracy charge, but went to trial and was acquitted by the federal jury on a firearms possession charge arising out of the same course of conduct. See Mocciola, 891 F.2d at 14. ___ ________ -24- 24 relatively limited effect, simply increasing the sentence by two offense levels (15 months). See id. at 15, 17.14 ___ ___ In United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. _____________ ________ 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1644 (1994), defendant _____________ Patriarca's appeal raised the question whether "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3 could include two murders of which Patriarca himself had not been charged, but which had been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy to which he had pleaded guilty. This court answered in the affirmative, reversing the district judge's conclusion. See id. at 80-81. ___ ___ Carrozza supports the analysis here in several ________ important respects. Although defendant Patriarca himself had not been charged federally with murder, at least one of his confederates had pleaded guilty to such a charge in a related ____________________ 14. At least two post-Mocciola cases from this circuit were ________ likewise decided on facts dissimilar to the circumstances here. See United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 34 F.3d 19, 23- ___ _____________ ________________ 26 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding, after drug conviction, two- level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) in view of conduct alleged in a dismissed firearms charge); United States v. Jackson, 3 F.3d 506, 509-10 (1st Cir. 1993) ______________ _______ (same, in view of uncharged conduct of which co-defendant was acquitted). Also, in United States v. LaCroix, 28 F.3d 223 (1st _____________ _______ Cir. 1994), the holding of Mocciola was restated in dictum, ________ but the only issue was whether certain financial losses could be attributed to the defendant under the "relevant conduct" provision of U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1) (June 1988). The defendant had been convicted as a participant in the conspiracy that caused those losses, but the jury had deadlocked on the substantive counts. The jury's inability to reach consensus on the substantive counts was held not to preclude a finding that the losses were foreseeable to the defendant as a convicted co-conspirator. See id. at 230-31. ___ ___ LaCroix does not aid the resolution of this case. _______ -25- 25 case. See United States v. Patriarca, 807 F. Supp. 165, 185 ___ _____________ _________ |