Sentencing Reform Act Lawsuit - US v Leonard Peltier

Current Actions

SRA - Civil Complaint


 FOIA Documents

  COINTELPRO
  FBI War Against AIM
  Incident at Oglala
  Investigation
  Extradition
  The Trial
  Post-Conviction

 Trial Transcript

  Opening Statements
  Government Case
  The Defense
  Summations

*Taking of Evidence Ends

  Conferences
  Verdict
  Sentencing
  Witness List

 Post-Trial Actions

  Administrative
  Civil
  Criminal

 Current Actions

  Executive Clemency
  Executive Review
  FOIA
  Parole

 Home Page

  ILPDC
  US -v- Peltier
 

U.S. v Leonard Peltier (CR NO. C77-3003)

Overview

On September 2, 2004, in a major lawsuit filed in Washington, DC, the Peltier attorneys claimed that United States Department of Justice officials have knowingly violated the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (and its amendments) and illegally extended Peltier's prison term by 12 years or more.  

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the U.S. Parole Commission and individuals who have served on the Commission during the past two decades; Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Attorneys General Edwin Meese, Richard Thornburgh, William Barr, and Janet Reno; and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, as well as former directors J. Michael Quinlan and Kathleen Hawk Sawyer.

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) was passed to address what Congress thought were inconsistent sentences imposed by different judges on different individuals convicted of the same crimes, as well as arbitrary parole decisions. A new system —one of determinate sentences—was born and the Parole Commission was abolished.

At the heart of the suit is the refusal of the government to enforce Title II, Chapter II, Section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act. Effective on October 12, 1984, this part of the law ordered that parole dates "consistent with the applicable parole guideline" be issued to all "old system" prisoners within the following five-year period, at the end of which time (on October 11, 1989) the Commission would cease to exist. 

On December 7, 1987, Congress enacted Public Law 100-182 which amended the SRA; repealed, in Section 2, the release criteria established by the original section 235(b)(3); and restored the release criteria under 18 U.S.C. 4206. This amendment did not restore the Parole Commission or remove its obligation to establish mandatory release dates, with sufficient time for appeal, by October 11, 1989. These changes to the law also applied only to crimes committed after the law was amended on December 7, 1987. The amendment simply did not apply to Leonard Peltier or to the some 6,000 other "old system" prisoners still held by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons today.

After it had technically ceased to exist, the Parole Commission claimed it needed more time to complete its work. Congress inexplicably granted a number of after-the-fact extensions, the first in 1990 and the latest in 2002. The suit claims these extensions were legally invalid and therefore inapplicable because, at the time they were made, the Parole Commission had already been abolished.  

Leonard Peltier should have been given his release date by October 11, 1989, minus sufficient time to exhaust appeals. Had the Parole Commission followed the congressional mandate, Peltier would have been released over 12 years ago. Lacking in any statutory authority, the U.S. Parole Commission in fact illegally extended Peltier's term of imprisonment. The failure of the Parole Commission to give a certain release date to Peltier violated the ex post facto, Bill of Attainder, and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The Peltier attorneys demanded a permanent injunction preventing further misapplication of the SRA and its amendments by the government; enforcement of the rights created by the original section 235(b)(3); and, due to irreparable injuries suffered by Peltier, compensatory and punitive damages as determined by a jury.

On September 17, 2004, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the complaint shouldn't be transferred to the District Court in Kansas. A response to the Order, as well as a Request for Hearing, were filed on October 12.  The Court issued an Order to Transfer soon thereafter. On October 29, the Legal Team Petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for a Writ of Mandamus. The Petition was denied. A similar Petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 15, 2005. This Petition also was denied.

On August 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, dismissed the action and denied all relief.

Case Files

 

Copyright 2003-2015 International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee

Last Updated on Wednesday April 15, 2015