A jury acquitted them of various charges. They served prison time for them anyway.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Billy Binion
·
Oct 4, 2022
@billybinion
·
Follow
Thread: Most people assume you can’t go to prison for a crime you were never convicted of. But that’s not true.

I’d like to tell you about several people who that very thing happened to—and what might come next.

Billy Binion
@billybinion
·
Follow
Erick Osby was convicted of 2 drug charges in 2019. He was sentenced to 7 years.

But his convictions only called for 2 years. The difference? The judge sentenced Osby for an additional 5 charges of which the jury *acquitted him.* /2

reason.com
A jury acquitted them of various charges. They served prison time for them anyway.
A jury acquitted Dayonta McClinton and others of various charges, but they served prison time for them anyway. The practice that allows this may soon end.
7:28 PM · Oct 4, 2022

https://reason.com/2022/10/04/a-jury-acquitted-them-of-various-charges-they-served-prison-time-for-them-anyway/

Can you do prison time for a criminal charge of which you were never convicted?

I'd venture that most would assume the answer is "no." They would be wrong.

Known as acquitted conduct sentencing, the practice allows judges to bloat a prison term when sentencing a defendant by punishing them for a separate charge or charges on which a jury deemed them not guilty.

It's attracted a wide coalition of critics across the political spectrum. And now it may be heading to the Supreme Court, which will soon decide if it will consider one such challenge to the practice that has been deemed by many to be plainly illegal.

The petition in front of the high court concerns Dayonta McClinton, who, at 17 years old, burglarized a CVS Pharmacy to steal drugs. The government also alleged that he shot one of his conspirators, Malik Perry, though a jury ultimately acquitted McClinton of causing Perry's death.

But the court overseeing the case disregarded that acquittal, agreeing with the government's request that McClinton should explicitly serve time for a crime that the prosecutors failed to convince a jury he committed. The sentencing guidelines for McClinton's convictions prescribed a term of 57–71 months. He instead received 228 months, or 19 years.

*snip*

[yankee87]

1. Unreal

I would say I’m shocked, I’m not anymore. After seeing all these miscarriages of justice, no one is shocked anymore. Good luck with the case

[TigressDem]

4. EXACTLY!!

[Jack the Greater]

2. When a muder is committed during the commission of a crime, all involved in the crime may be found

guilty of the murder. Is that what the Supreme Court is going to decided upon?

[unblock]

6. No, that's something else entirely

In that situation, the getaway driver would likely be *found guilty* of murder even if they didn't know the bank robbers were armed and killed a teller.

The scenario here is where the jury decides the accused was *not* guilty of murder because, say, the defense was able to show they the teller died of a heart attack before the robbers even showed up.

But they find him guilty of being part of the robbery, and the judge sentences him based on both the robbery *and* the murder the jury said he did *not* commit.

[rsdsharp]

3. I once saw a judge sentence a woman to five years on a charge that had a maximum sentence

of one year. The county attorney had to point out his error. He was a little pissed at her because she had called him a “fat dago bastard.”

[Bayard]

5. Never heard of this before

Wouldn't that be Unconstitutional?

Thanks for posting.