United States v. Datcher
830 F. Supp. 411, 1993 WL 343390, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12665 (1993)
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant may be permitted to argue the severity of potential mandatory sentences to the jury to enable the jury to exercise its historical role as the 'conscience of the community' and protect against government oppression, even though the court will not explicitly instruct the jury on nullification.
Facts:
- Douglas E. Datcher was indicted for attempted distribution of a controlled substance, conspiracy to distribute, and use of a firearm in connection with the distribution.
- Under federal law, conviction on these charges carried significant mandatory penalties, including a minimum of ten years imprisonment.
- Datcher faced a serious threat to his liberty due to the severity of these potential mandatory sentences.
- Datcher sought to inform the jurors of these specific 'draconian' penalties during the trial proceedings.
- His objective was to make the jury aware of the consequences of a guilty verdict, hoping they would deem the penalty too great for the offense.
- Datcher intended for this information to prompt the jury to exercise nullification—acquitting him despite the evidence to prevent the imposition of an unjust sentence.
Procedural Posture:
- The government indicted Datcher on multiple drug and firearm charges in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
- Datcher filed a pre-trial motion request permission to argue the issue of punishment to the jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant facing mandatory minimum sentences have the right to inform the jury of the specific potential punishment during argument to allow the jury to exercise its oversight function and power of nullification?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiseman
Yes, the defendant may argue the issue of punishment to the jury to facilitate their role as a check on government oppression, although the court will not officially instruct them on nullification. The court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is intended to prevent government oppression. The jury acts as the 'conscience of the community' and historically possesses the power to nullify laws they deem unjust. While the Supreme Court has held there is no right to jury sentencing, it has not explicitly forbidden the jury from knowing the sentencing consequences. The court distinguished between instructing a jury on nullification (which might encourage anarchy) and merely allowing the jury to have the information necessary to exercise their conscience. The court noted that because modern sentencing guidelines have stripped judges of discretion, the jury remains the final protections against arbitrary punishments.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant and somewhat rare departure from the standard federal practice which typically prohibits mentioning sentencing consequences to a jury in non-capital cases. Judge Wiseman challenges the rigid separation of fact-finding and sentencing, arguing that the strictness of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines necessitates a return to the jury's historical oversight role. The opinion draws a critical distinction between instructing a jury that they have the right to ignore the law (which is generally forbidden) and permitting argument that provides the jury with the knowledge required to exercise that power independently. This case highlights the tension between judicial efficiency/uniformity and the jury's political role as a buffer between the accused and the state.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Datcher (1993)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"