A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent federal judges from imposing harsher sentences based on conduct for which a defendant was legally found not guilty, thereby reinforcing the principle of due process and the right to a jury trial.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit federal courts from considering conduct for which a defendant was acquitted, or charges were dismissed via an acquittal motion, when determining a sentence. It explicitly allows such conduct to be considered if it would serve to mitigate (reduce) a sentence. The prohibition applies to judgments entered on or after the bill's enactment date.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that allowing judges to consider acquitted conduct undermines the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the presumption of innocence, leading to sentences for crimes a defendant was not convicted of beyond a reasonable doubt. They contend that this legislation restores integrity to the federal sentencing process by ensuring that punishment is based solely on proven offenses.
Opponents contend
Opponents of such prohibitions might argue that judges need broad discretion to consider all relevant information at sentencing to ensure individualized justice and public safety. They contend that acquitted conduct can still be relevant to a defendant's character, history, and future dangerousness, even if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that limiting this discretion could lead to less effective sentencing.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a quick read and understanding by any informed reader.
Section 1(a)(1)
Prohibition on Considering Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing
This provision amends existing federal law (18 U.S.C. 3661) to explicitly state that federal courts cannot use conduct for which a person was found not guilty by a jury or judge as a basis for increasing their sentence. It carves out an important exception, allowing such conduct to be considered if it would lead to a lighter, or mitigating, sentence for the defendant.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision upholds the constitutional right to a jury trial and the presumption of innocence, preventing individuals from being punished for crimes they were not convicted of beyond a reasonable doubt. They assert it aligns sentencing with the outcomes of formal adjudication.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this limits a judge's ability to consider the full context of a defendant's actions and character, potentially leading to sentences that do not adequately reflect the defendant's true culpability or risk to society, even if specific charges were not proven.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the principle of due process and the right to a jury trial against judicial discretion in sentencing and the desire for individualized justice that considers all relevant information about a defendant.
Section 1(b)
Definition of Acquitted Conduct
This section adds a new definition to federal law (18 U.S.C. 3673), clarifying what 'acquitted conduct' means for the purpose of sentencing. It includes acts where a person was found not guilty after trial in federal, state, or tribal courts, or found not responsible in juvenile adjudication hearings. It also covers charges dismissed in federal, state, or tribal courts upon a motion for acquittal.
The amendment made by this bill, prohibiting the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing, shall only apply to judgments entered on or after the date of enactment of this section.
Section 1(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the effective date of a new law, ensuring legal certainty and avoiding retroactive application, rather than an attempt to obscure its impact.
Case for: This clause ensures that the new rule does not retroactively apply to past sentences, thereby avoiding complex legal challenges, potential re-sentencing efforts, and a significant burden on the judicial system.
Case against: Some advocates for criminal justice reform might argue for retroactive application to address perceived injustices in past sentences, but this would create substantial judicial and administrative burdens and legal complexities.
Estimated impact: This provision limits the immediate impact of the bill to future cases, preventing a flood of appeals or motions for resentencing based on the newly enacted rule.