International Statistical Review

Sentencing Illicit Drug Traffickers: How do the Courts Handle Random Sampling Issues?

Alan J. Izenman

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

While many European justice systems distinguish between possession of and trafficking in illicit drugs, sentencing in drug cases in those countries tends not to depend (at least formally) upon the quantity of drugs seized from a defendant, but rather on the circumstances in which the defendant was found with drugs. Courts in the United States, on the other hand, penalize those convicted of drug crimes through an elaborate system of sentencing rules and guidelines. These sentences depend only upon the amount of drugs (possibly adjusted for circumstances) and the defendant's criminal history. Because of the enormous amount of work needed to determine drug type and quantity in each case, sampling the evidence and estimates of drug quantity have been accepted in most courts in the United States. During the last two years, several major developments in U.S. federal sentencing have taken place. It all started in June 2000 with the Supreme Court case Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which Justice O'Connor, in dissent, termed a "watershed in constitutional law". Prior to Apprendi, a judge would sentence a convicted drug trafficker to imprisonment using the preponderance standard of proof on the quantities of drugs seized. The affect of Apprendi is to make more juries decide the quantity of drugs by the reasonable doubt standard. Although Apprendi had nothing to do with illicit drugs, the implication now is that all federal sentencing protocols are under revision. Since Apprendi was decided, huge numbers of cases involving convicted drug traffickers have relied upon its reasoning on appeal, with the result that a ruling from the Supreme Court on further clarification of this issue is expected. This article discusses the impact so far of Apprendi on statistical issues involved in estimating total drug quantity and considers possible future directions under the changing protocols.

Article information

Source
Internat. Statist. Rev., Volume 71, Number 3 (2003), 535-556.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 21 October 2003

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.isr/1066768706

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1114.62380

Keywords
Controlled substances Drug laws Federal sentencing guidelines Forensic statistics Homogeneity Multistage sampling Random sampling Standards of proof

Citation

Izenman, Alan J. Sentencing Illicit Drug Traffickers: How do the Courts Handle Random Sampling Issues?. Internat. Statist. Rev. 71 (2003), no. 3, 535--556. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.isr/1066768706


Export citation

References

  • [1] Aitken, C.G.G. (1999). Sampling-how big a sample? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 750-760.
  • [2] Aitken, C.G.G. (2000). Sample size determination and evidence interpretation. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J. Gastwirth,pp. 1-24. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [3] Beaupre, B. & Eisler, P. (1996). Crisis in evidence. USA Today, August 20 1A, 2A, 7A; August 21 9A.
  • [4] Boswell, M.T., Gore, S.D., Lovison, G. & Patil, G.P. (1996). Annotated bibliography of composite sampling, part A: 1936-92. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 3, 1-50.
  • [5] British Standard BS 5309 (1993). Methods for the sampling of chemical products: Part I. Introduction and general principles.
  • [6] Bureau of Justice Assistance (1996). National Assessment of Structured Sentencing, NJ-153853. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • [7] Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, Third Edition. New York: Wiley.
  • [8] Colon, M., Rodriguez, G. & Diaz, R.O. (1993). Representative sampling of `street' drug exhibits. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 641-648.
  • [9] Deming, W.E. (1954). On the presentation of the results of sample surveys as legal evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 814-825.
  • [10] Department of Justice (2002). DEA briefs and background: law enforcement statistics, %Attorney-General's 2002 Performance Report, Washington, D.C. See {\tt http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics.html}.
  • [11] Desu, M.M. & Raghavarao, D. (1990). Sample Size Methodology. New York: Academic Press.
  • [12] Diamond, S.S. (1994). Reference guide on survey research. In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 221-271.
  • [13] Federal Judicial Center (2000). Reference Materials for Charging and Sentencing After Apprendi, a Federal Judicial Center broadcast on the Federal Judicial Television Network, first broadcast December 13, 2000.
  • [14] Frank, R.S., Hinkley, S.W. & Hoffman, C.G. (1991). Representative sampling of drug seizures in multiple containers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 350-357.
  • [15] Gastwirth, J.L. (1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy: (Vol. 1) Statistical Concepts and Issues of Fairness; (Vol. 2) Tort Law, Evidence, and Health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • [16] Gastwirth, J.L., Friedlin, B. & Miao, W. (2000). The Shonubi case as an example of the legal system's failure to appreciate statistical evidence. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 25-53. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [17] Greenhouse, L. (2001). Court to weigh criminal sentencing. New York Times, December 11, 2001.
  • [18] Greenhouse, L. (2002). Justices weigh how far to take a sentencing revolution. New York Times, March 26, 2002.
  • [19] Greenwald, L. (1994). Relevant conduct and the impact of the preponderance standard of proof under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A denial of due process. Vermont Law Review, 18, 529-563.
  • [20] Hedayat, S., Izenman, A.J. & Zhang, W.G. (1996). Random sampling for the forensic study of controlled substances (with discussion). ASA Proceedings of the Section on Physical and Engineering Sciences, pp. 12-23.
  • [21] Izenman, A.J. (2000a). Statistical issues in the application of the federal sentencing guidelines in drug, pornography, and fraud cases. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 25-53. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [22] Izenman, A.J. (2000b). Introduction to two views of the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 397-407. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [23] Izenman, A.J. (2000c). Assessing the statistical evidence in the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 419-444. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [24] Izenman, A.J. (2001). Legal and statistical aspects of the forensic study of illicit drugs. Statistical Science, 16, 35-57.
  • [25] King, N.J. & Klein, S.R. (2000). Apr\`{e}s Apprendi. In Reference Materials for Charging and Sentencing After Apprendi. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, pp. 14-41.
  • [26] Kruskal, W. & Mosteller, F. (1979). Representative sampling. I. Nonscientific literature. II. Scientific literature, excluding statistics. III. The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 13-24, 111-127, 245-265.
  • [27] Lancaster, V.A. & Keller-McNulty, S. (1998). A review of composite sampling methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93, 1216-1230.
  • [28] Larsen, K.H. (1964). Admissibility in evidence of sample or samples of article or substance of which the quality, condition, or the like is involved in litigation. ALR2d, 95, 681-712. [See also Later Case Service Supplementing 94-95 ALR2d (1993) pp. 366-368.]
  • [29] Le, S.D., Taylor, R.W., Vidal, D., Lovas, J.J. & Ting, E. (1992). Occupational exposure to cocaine involving crime lab personnel. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 959-968.
  • [30] Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B. & Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • [31] Strong, J.W. (1992). McCormick on Evidence, Volume 1, 4th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
  • [32] Tzidony, D. & Ravreby, M. (1992). A statistical approach to drug sampling: a case study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1541-1549.
  • [33] United Nations (1987). Recommended Methods for Testing Cannabis: Manual for Use by National Narcotics Laboratories. United Nations, Division of Narcotic Drugs, Vienna.
  • [34] United States Sentencing Commission (1995). Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
  • [35] Walker, L. & Monahan, J. (1998). Sampling damages. Iowa Law Review, 83, 545-568.
  • [36] Walker, L. & Monahan, J. (1999). Sampling liability. Virginia Law Review, 85, 329-351.