US v. Simpson, 8 F.3d 546 (1993)

Is it erroneous for a sentencing court to not explain its reasoning for consecutive sentences and for disparate sentences between co-conspirators?


The Court of Appeals held that there was no rule that required an explanation for consecutive sentences, and that the record contained enough evidence that justified sentencing Simpson to a longer term that his co-conspirators. Simpson was convicted of mail and securities fraud in promoting an illegal pyramid scheme. He had been the director of the program, and had admitted to being the sole person directing the operation. This was a sufficient standard to impose a harsher sentence on him than those received by the other members of the operation. The court also held that it has never required, by case law or statute, that a sentencing judge must state their reasons for sentencing a person to serve consecutive sentences instead of concurrent ones.

Full case and case summary also available at:

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Federal, 7th Circuit, Indiana | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Babener & Associates | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Babener & Associates on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.