NCJ Number
88233
Journal
Loyola University Law Journal Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 875-916
Date Published
1982
Length
42 pages
Annotation
An analysis of the existing evidentiary standards governing the trial and sentencing phases of noncapital cases concludes that standards governing the admissibility of evidence are urgently needed for the sentencing phase.
Abstract
In the sentencing process, the various evidentiary protections available during trial on the merits are ususally lost to the offender. The Federal Rules of Evidence are specifically nonapplicable once the sentencing phase begins. Almost no restrictions exist regarding the admission of information regarding the convicted offender's background, character, and conduct. Few evidentiary proscriptions exist to protect the offender in a noncapital case against the admissibility of adverse information. The presentence report is a crucial document, which the sentencing judge uses to evaluate the offender and determine the punishment. Disclosure of the presentence report is not a right, even though the offender must know the nature of the adverse information to be able to refute it. In addition, criteria regarding sentencing techniques vary widely throughout the Federal circuits, and aside from the relatively narrow guidelines delineated in Williams v. New York and Townsend v. Burke, the Supreme Court has placed almost no controls on the gathering and use of sentencing information. The sentencing guidelines system and the creation of a sentencing commission to aid sentencing judges in determining punishment are concerned mainly with a quantitative reevaluation of the current system. To achieve complete sentencing reform, qualitative analysis is essential. The proposed amendments to Rule 32 allow convicted offenders more access to adverse information and give them the opportunity to challenge it. The Military Rules of Evidence also show how rules of evidence can be successfully applied to the sentencing stage. Evidentiary standards have an important place in sentencing. Footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)