NCJ Number
86566
Journal
Yale Law Journal Volume: 91 Issue: 6 Dated: (May 1982) Pages: 1225-1249
Date Published
1982
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This paper criticizes the interpretation of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permitting defendants to challenge only the accuracy of information in presentence investigation reports (PSI) relied on by the sentencing judge and proposes amending the rule to allow challenges to any information in PSI that could affect sentencing or parole decisions.
Abstract
The PSI is prepared primarily for the sentencing judge, but is also used to determine correctional treatment. PSI's, however, often contain erroneous, incomplete, or misleading information that can be highly prejudicial to offenders. To mitigate this problem, Congress amended Rule 32 in 1975 to allow defendants to review their PSI's and challenge inaccuracies prior to sentencing. The amendments have failed to prevent the use of inaccurate PSI information because of the narrow judicial interpretation that hearings are required only when the disputed information may have been relied on by the judge in imposing sentence. Moreover, information that may not have been used in sentencing is forwarded to the parole authorities with its accuracy untested. Due process requires that sentencing decisions be based on accurate information. In addition, the legislative histories of Rule 32 and the parole statute indicate that Congress intended complete accuracy in the sentencing and parole decisions of Federal offenders. Finally, the interests of both society and criminal offenders are best served when fairness and accuracy are assured at all stages of the sentencing and correctional process. The sentencing hearing provided by Rule 32 should be modified to allow challenges to any PSI information relevant to either the sentencing or parole decision. An individual wishing to challenge information in the PSI would first appeal directly to the parole officer who wrote the report. Factual disputes not settled through this process would be resolved at the sentencing hearing, and correctional agencies would be bound by this decision. The proposed modification would produce more appropriate sentencing and parole decisions, remedy the present inefficient division of labor between the sentencing judge and the parole commission, and probably improve the overall quality of PSI's in the long run. The article contains 134 footnotes.