Even though a federal jury found him not guilty of murder, he was sentenced to life in prison. Virginia prosecutors want to keep it that way.

When police arrested Richardson in 1998, he was facing the death penalty. Afraid of potentially putting his life in the hands of a white jury in the South, Richardson, who is Black, took a guilty plea for involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. Claiborne, who is also Black, took a plea deal on a misdemeanor charge, as an accessory to Richardson’s crime.

But after outcry over what Gibson’s family viewed as a lenient sentence, federal prosecutors brought additional charges against the pair, accusing them of selling crack cocaine and murdering a police officer during a drug deal gone wrong.

In 2001, Richardson and Claiborne went to trial in the federal case. A jury found them not guilty of Gibson’s murder, but guilty of selling crack. In an unusual move, federal judge Robert Payne sentenced Richardson and Claiborne to life in prison using “acquitted conduct sentencing,” a legal mechanism approved in a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, which allows judges to sentence defendants based on charges for which they were acquitted.

Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/zjFXZ

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    24·
    3 months ago

    In 2001, a jury found them not guilty of murder. A judge sentenced them to life in prison anyway.

    I don’t understand how this is possible. I wouldn’t believe it if you told me this happened. How?

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      3 months ago

      It’s technically possible, but should never ever happen.

      Normally a judge can overrule a guilty judgment as a matter of law, but some few jurisdictions allow a bench verdict, just shouldn’t be possible in combination with a jury verdict unless that was somehow invalidated.

      Edit:

      In an unusual move, federal judge Robert Payne sentenced Richardson and Claiborne to life in prison using “acquitted conduct sentencing,” a legal mechanism approved in a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, which allows judges to sentence defendants based on charges for which they were acquitted.

      What. The. Fuck.

      This is 90s drug war law, an appeal should destroy it, it’s basically patently unconstitutional under the 6th:

      https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-1/ALDE_00013124/

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          Fucking amateurs should have pulled up with the Jury Nullification Nullification Nullification.

          • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
            4·
            3 months ago

            Only way to do that is not know the words jury nullification but coming to that conclusion magically.

            Just knowing what jury null is apparently can disqualify you as a potential juror.

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              They need to make it common knowledge, then we do what we do at the orgy and get EVERYONE off

      • Huckledebuck
        3·
        3 months ago

        And hopefully will become well known to all Americans when this shit happens.