Summary#
This bill would stop federal judges from using "acquitted conduct" to increase a defendant’s sentence. It changes one sentencing rule so courts may not consider conduct for which a person was found not guilty or whose charge was dismissed after a motion for acquittal. The stated aim is to avoid punishing people for acts of which they were acquitted.
- Main change: Courts would be barred from considering acquitted conduct at sentencing except if that conduct is offered to reduce (mitigate) a sentence.
- Definition: "Acquitted conduct" is defined to include acts a person was tried and found not guilty of, juvenile acts found "not responsible," and acts underlying charges dismissed after a motion for acquittal.
- Scope: The rule would apply only to sentences imposed after the law takes effect.
- Who drafts the change: The bill modifies the federal sentencing statute that currently allows courts broad access to information at sentencing.
What it means for you#
- People charged with crimes / Defendants: Judges could no longer raise your sentence based on conduct you were acquitted of at trial or where a court entered an acquittal-type dismissal. This protection would apply to future sentences only.
- Juveniles: The bill’s definition explicitly covers juvenile proceedings where the juvenile was found not responsible.
- Defense lawyers: May use acquittals as a stronger argument that certain facts cannot be used to justify higher sentences.
- Prosecutors: May not be able to rely on conduct from dismissed or acquitted charges when arguing for a higher sentence. They may change charging or plea strategies in response.
- Judges and probation officers: Would need to avoid including acquitted conduct when calculating or arguing for harsher sentences; they could still consider it only to argue for a lower sentence.
- Victims and the public: Could see fewer sentence increases based on disputed or acquitted allegations; the bill does not directly change victims’ rights or restitution rules.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text does not include a fiscal note or budget estimate.
- Possible indirect costs (not estimated in the bill): more litigation over what counts as "acquitted conduct," changes in how pre-sentencing investigations are done, and potential adjustments to how prosecutors allocate resources. These are possible effects the bill text suggests but are not quantified.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to prevent people from being punished at sentencing for conduct the jury (or juvenile court) found they did not commit.
- Supporters may argue this protects the trial right and the principle that an acquittal should not be treated as a finding that allows harsher punishment.
- The change could be seen as increasing fairness and reducing the risk that disputed facts proved only by judge-findings will raise a defendant’s sentence.
- Making the rule apply to State, Federal, and Tribal adjudications broadens its reach beyond federal trials.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that judges use information about a defendant’s conduct to set a sentence that protects public safety; barring acquitted conduct could limit that information and change sentencing outcomes.
- The bill does not explain how to treat conduct that was not the subject of a formal acquittal (for example, charges dropped for reasons other than an acquittal motion), so some disputes over what counts as "acquitted conduct" may increase.
- It is unclear how the change would interact with existing sentencing rules that group offenses or calculate guideline ranges based on related conduct. This may create practical or procedural questions for courts.
- The bill applies only to future judgments, so it would not change past sentences that relied on acquitted conduct; some may see that as inconsistent treatment.