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
How the fuck is “acquitted conduct sentencing” allowed and not a flagrant violation of justice? What the hell happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
Also how is charging someone for a crime they were acquitted of not cruel and unusual?
Or a mechanism ripe for abuse of power.
Answering both of our rhetorical questions at once: “because they were black”
“This one is for when you kicked my dog!” *smack!*
“And this one is for when you stole $10 from me!”
“Uh, they were acquitted on that one. You found the $10 stuck to the bottom of your shoe with some gum.”
“Oh… This is for making me think you stole $10 from me!” *smack*
Justice has very little to do with the US legal system.