In October 2015, a group of young men attempted to rob a CVS pharmacy on College Avenue in Indianapolis. The robbery, orchestrated by Willonte Yates and his associates Malik Perry and Dayonta McClinton, was intended to be another in a series of similar heists. However, the plan faltered when they discovered the pharmacy’s safe was time-locked, preventing immediate access to the drugs they sought. As police response loomed, the group fled with only a small bottle of hydrocodone, kidney medication, and cough syrup containing codeine.
The group’s getaway ended in turmoil when, in a residential area, tensions over the meager haul led to Perry being shot and killed by an unknown assailant. McClinton, despite being tried as an adult at 17, was convicted for his involvement in the robbery but was acquitted of Perry’s murder. Nonetheless, during sentencing, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt imposed a 19-year sentence on McClinton, heavily influenced by Perry’s murder—despite the jury’s acquittal on that charge.
This sentencing, based on “acquitted conduct,” highlights a controversial practice within the U.S. criminal justice system. Although the Supreme Court sanctioned this practice in 1997, it has remained largely under the public’s radar, sparking debate among legal scholars, constitutional conservatives, and libertarians. Critics argue it contradicts the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial rights and the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee.
While only a small percentage of federal convictions involve split verdicts, where a defendant is acquitted of some charges, the practice pressures defendants to plead guilty. The fear of being sentenced based on acquitted charges discourages defendants from risking a trial. Consequently, federal trial sentences can be significantly harsher than plea deals, exacerbating the coercive nature of plea bargaining.
Efforts to limit acquitted-conduct sentencing have gained momentum. In April 2024, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to restrict the practice, stating that conduct for which a defendant was acquitted should not influence sentencing unless it overlaps with the convicted offense. However, the amendment, effective November 1, leaves room for interpretation and is advisory, not mandatory.
The amendment’s impact remains uncertain, as it depends on judicial adherence and whether it applies retroactively to allow resentencing. Congressional attempts to prohibit acquitted-conduct sentencing have stalled, leaving the commission’s decision as a potential remedy.
The issue continues to resonate with those affected, like Jessie Ailsworth, who despite multiple acquittals, faced a lengthy sentence based on charges the jury dismissed. The ongoing debate underscores a fundamental question about fairness and the integrity of jury verdicts in the justice system. Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately address this constitutional challenge remains to be seen.