United States v. Carolyn Jackson
132 F.4th 266
3rd Cir.2025Background
- Carolyn and John Jackson were convicted of severe child abuse against three adopted children under the age of four, based on both acts and omissions (withholding food, water, medical care; forcing children to ingest substances; physical assault).
- The Jacksons were charged and convicted under the Assimilative Crimes Act (federal prosecution of state law crimes committed on a military installation).
- Their sentences were vacated and remanded multiple times due to prior sentencing errors, ultimately requiring reassignment to a new judge.
- Judge Wigenton resentenced Carolyn Jackson to 140 months and John Jackson to 108 months of imprisonment after a full hearing and review of the trial record.
- The Jacksons appealed, challenging the constitutionality, procedural, and substantive aspects of the new sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Jacksons' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial factfinding at sentencing | Judge acted unconstitutionally by finding facts (serious injury/weapon) by preponderance for higher guideline ranges | Judges can make findings affecting Guideline range (not statutory max) | No constitutional violation; allowed under precedent |
| Resentencing after serving sentence | Resentencing after completion violated Double Jeopardy/due process (expectation of finality) | No expectation of finality while sentence under appeal | No Double Jeopardy or due process violation; appeal negates finality |
| Law of the case doctrine | New sentencing judge was bound by prior judge's findings | Vacatur/remand wipes slate clean; not bound by prior rulings | Law of the case did not apply; sentencer had discretion |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness | Sentences based on incorrect facts, ignored mitigating factors, upward variance was unjustified | Sentences fairly considered factors, detailed findings, alternative sentence given | No clear error or unreasonableness; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (rules requiring statutory maximum sentence factors to be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (jury must find elements increasing mandatory minimum)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (standard for factual findings at sentencing)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (no expectation of sentence finality while appeal pending)
- Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376 (resentencing to correct erroneous sentences does not grant unjustified windfalls)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (vacatur of sentence gives resentencing court a clean slate)
- United States v. Mitchell, 38 F.4th 382 (defendant is rendered unsentenced when sentence vacated)