Background
Brian Keith Mays was charged with armed bank robbery and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He maintained his innocence and proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted him on both counts. The probation officer’s presentence report calculated a total offense level of twenty-two under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and did not include a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Mays objected to this omission, arguing that the denial of the reduction unconstitutionally punished his decision to exercise his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that its precedent forecloses Mays’s argument. Citing United States v. Portillo-Valenzuela, the court explained that denying the reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not a penalty for exercising one’s right to trial. Instead, the reduction is a reward for those who take full responsibility. Therefore, a court may constitutionally deny the reduction if the defendant’s exercise of a constitutional right is inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. The court concluded that exercising the right to trial does not mandate an increase to the Guidelines’ offense level but instead precludes a reduction.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defendants who proceed to trial and maintain innocence are not entitled to a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility, as the Guidelines distinguish between penalties for exercising rights and the withholding of rewards for admitting guilt.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download