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
It’s interesting how they are using this case.
US vs Watts decided this wasn’t a violation of so, but it’s still a crime of which they were not found guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt.
The 2 situations used in the case was a man being charged with possession and also with growing marijuana in his home as 2 separate charges,.and a womannhlwho had been acquitted of selling cocaine once, who was then later convicted for selling cocaine on another occasion,but was sentenced for both.
In the case this post is about, the guy was coerced into a confession where evidence proving his innocence was withheld from the defense, and the judge still thought he was getting off easy and convicted him of selling crack and the murder of a cop during a drug deal.
It sounds like now even though he’s acquitted of the murder, they’re still trying to keep him in jail on the other added on charges, if I’m reading things correctly.
