10-2343 U.S. v. Snodgrass

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Discretion

Where the judge gave a thorough written explanation for the sentence, the sentence is affirmed, even though the oral remarks at the sentencing hearing were inadequate.

“We caution, however, that name-calling is not a substitute for reasoned analysis. Regardless of the heinous nature of the crime, every defendant is entitled to a reasoned explanation of his sentence. This ensures meaningful appellate review and promotes the perception of fair sentencing. During Snodgrass’ sentencing hearing, the judge uttered an explanation that provided no guidance on appeal and served only to insult the defendant. Such an explanation is inadequate under the law and incompatible with of our system of justice. While the judge’s written explanation of Snodgrass’ sentence preserved meaningful appellate review, we lament the need for it in this case.”

Affirmed.

10-2343 U.S. v. Snodgrass

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text