Federal Judges Barred From Using Acquitted Conduct to Increase Prison Sentences

If you’ve ever sat through a jury trial scene on TV, you know the verdict is supposed to be the end of the story. But in federal court, that hasn’t always been true, especially during sentencing. This bill steps in to change that, making a significant amendment to federal sentencing law (18 U.S.C. § 3661). Simply put, it prohibits federal judges from considering “acquitted conduct”—that is, acts a defendant was charged with but found not guilty of—when deciding on a prison sentence. The only exception? If that information is used to reduce the sentence, which is called mitigation.

The Double Jeopardy Loophole Gets Closed

For years, a defendant could be found not guilty of, say, a major drug trafficking charge, but convicted on a lesser charge like simple possession. Under the old system, the judge could still consider the evidence from the trafficking charge (the acquitted conduct) during sentencing for the possession charge, often resulting in a far harsher sentence. This bill aims to close that loophole. It explicitly states that a court cannot use acquitted conduct to determine a sentence, ensuring that a jury’s verdict of “not guilty” truly means what it says.

This is a major win for due process. Imagine being cleared of a major accusation, only to have the judge use the same unproven facts to tack years onto your sentence for a different, related crime. This change ensures that the finality of a jury’s decision is respected in the courtroom. It applies to any judgment entered after the bill becomes law.

Defining the ‘Not Guilty’ Line

To prevent confusion, the bill adds a clear definition of “acquitted conduct” (18 U.S.C. § 3673). It covers three key areas: first, any act for which a person was criminally charged and found not guilty after a trial (in Federal, State, or Tribal court). Second, it includes any charge that was dismissed because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence, often through a motion for acquittal. Third, it covers juvenile findings of “not responsible.” This clarity means judges and lawyers won't have to guess what conduct is off-limits.

However, the bill maintains a crucial allowance: a judge can consider acquitted conduct if it is used to mitigate the sentence. So, while a prosecutor can’t argue, “He may have been acquitted of the trafficking charge, but we should still give him a longer sentence,” a defense attorney could potentially argue, “The facts surrounding the acquitted charge show mitigating circumstances that warrant a shorter sentence.” This keeps the door open for fairness without allowing the acquitted conduct to be used punitively.