Other amendments being offered by the Department of Justice via members of the Judiciary are predicted to be:

The Justice Department's Amendment to Permit Appellate Review of Unreasonably Low Sentences:

Regarding the amendment, the Department of Justice states: "The bill, however, does not contain any provision that would permit the government, on behalf of the public, to seek appellate review of a sentence that on its face value appeared to be unreasonably lenient." Such an amendment would, however, be a clear violation of the Constitution, specifically of the double jeopardy clause.

The Justice Department's Amendment to Restore Present Law by Deleting the Provision Allowing Defense Counsel Inside the Grand Jury Room:

The Department of Justice states that "the existing rule is necessary to preserve the grand jury as an effective investigatory institution.

Witness without counsel in the grand jury room, however, unnecessarily prolongs the grand jury proceeding and places the witness in an unfavorable light before the grand jurors. The American Law Institute has called the ban on having counsel for the defense in the grand jury room "degrading and irrational" and the American Bar Association is also strongly opposed to this ban.

5THE
AMENDMENT

We urge you, again, to re-examine the above amendments and

the others proposed by the Department of Justice and vote

against them when they're introduced in the full Judiciary Committee.

Sincerely,

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Citizens Commission On Human Rights

RECEIVED

May 21, 1980

MAY 2 7 1980

Washington Office

4317 Fessenden Street. N W
Washington, DC 20016
(202) 797-9812

National Research Office 4872 Fountain Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026

National Advisory Board
John Matonis
General Counsel

Lee Coleman, M.D
Psychiatrist

The Honorable Peter Rodino
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Rodino:

I have enclosed two amendments that have been submitted to the Judiciary for us by Rep. Henry Hyde. These amendments will be introduced when the sentencing section of HR 6915 is taken

up.

Both

This is to request your support of these amendments. provide for a systematic sentencing hearing and authorize sentencing alternatives. The first amendment, formulated by the A.B.A., requires that the judge consider the sentencing Michael Smith, Ph D. Chemistry types beginning with the most lenient and that he give his reasons

Michael Kananack
Attorney

David Jordan
Attorney

John Friedberg. M.D.

Ray Reynolds, M D.
Psychiatrist

Rev. Kenneth Whitman
Church of Scientology

Kenneth Donaldson
Author and Lecturer

why when a sentencing type has not been chosen. Contrary to
objections to this amendment, such a procedure does not necessarily
add much time to the hearing. The second amendment does not require
that the judge give his reasons when a sentencing type is not
chosen.

We hope you will support these amendments when they are introduced.

LP/hh

enclosure

Sponsored by the DC Association of Scientologists for Reform

Sincerely,

inda M. Purdue Acting Director

(b) Before imposing sentence, the court shall afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and shall address the defendant personally and ask whether the defendant wishes to make a statement or to present information in mitigation of punishment.

The attorney for the Government shall

have an equivalent opportunity to speak to the court.

[(c) The judge in sentencing an individual shall consider

inter alia the following sentencing alternatives, and any

combination thereof, and state his reasons for his determination:

(3) An order to make restitution to the victim of

the offense as authorized by Chapter 33.

(4)

Forfeiture as authorized by Chapter 33.

(5) Community service as authorized by Chapter 33, or

Proposed Amendment to H.R. 6915
Submitted by:

Shortened A B A Sentencing Procedure Amchenry

Page 167, Line 24 $3103

(Not approved by A B A)

(c) The judge, in sentencing an individual for whom

Hyde

the defense has proposed an alternative which the judge finds not
completely suitable, shall provide the defense counsel with the
clear opportunity to propose a more suitable program before
pronouncing the sentence, and, after pronouncing the sentence, the
judge shall provide the defense the clear opportunity to present
further, more suitable alternatives before the imposition of
sentence.]

(d) (was (c)] When imposing sentence, the court shall-
(1) make such findings as are necessary to resolve

any material fact in controversy that may affect sentencing;
(2) make such findings as are necessary to

determine the applicable sentencing guideline;

(3)
(4)

specify the applicable sentencing guideline; and

state on the record the reasons for the imposition of the particular sentence, and if the sentence is not consistent with the applicable sentencing guideline, the specific reasons for imposition of a sentence different from that provided in such guideline.

(e) [was (d)] The court shall impose a sentence that is consistent with the sentencing guidelines prescribed under chapter 43 (relating to sentencing guidelines) of this title, unless the court finds that an aggravating or mitigating circumstance should result in another sentence.