statistics. <strong>The</strong> statistics cited in Sitz about the costs of DWI were n~isonderstoodmd misapplied from a hid evidence poiut of view, and tvould probablynot be admissible as scientific or expert evidence to prove an adjudicativefact. See, eg, Ua116ert u, dIerreIDo~uPhc~r~t~ncet~ticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct.2786 (1993); I;rrj~?m Tirw Co. u. Cart11ichne~ 119 S.Ct 1167 (1999). <strong>The</strong>findings in ilIoitdJ: Gnluan-Rodrigtie4 and <strong>For</strong>tes are also unsupported byevidence.Na~~!ikins wd Sitz are distinguishable because cou~ls liax the constitutiondpower to write evidence law and Fourth Amendment collstihltiondlaw ~11nrb111:~~ u. ~llrdisoo, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (the courts, not Congress,liave the find say on constitutional issues). Wen coum do 11ave the po~wto make law, tl~ey may rely 011 poiicy preferences, judicial pl~ilosophy, or"legislative facts," wvl~ich tl~ey nmy &id either by judicial notice or by weighingevidence offered by parties.Under our Constitution, however, judges do hot write statuto~y criminallaw. Tlme is no precedent for the notion that a court can rely on fit~clingsof facts, be they adjudicative or legislative, to fill ill gaps in a criminal stahlteas they did in 111011iij: Gnl~!nir-KotIrigt~ex, and <strong>For</strong>tes, to nlention a fmucases.<strong>The</strong>re is no precedent for judicial relimce on balancing tests or hd-ings offrrcts to intellwet thewords of cruuinal stah~tes enacted by Coiigress,especially one that iucreases the shh~to~y nlaximun~ sentence fro111 2 to 20yeas or 10 to life without parole. <strong>The</strong> power to define "violent felon):""agg~mvated felony," and "serious violent felon)+' belongs to Congress, notthe courts. Congress ,nay not delegate hat power to courts.6. Tile catcli-all provisions violate the Fifth hncndtrent's fairwanling requirementsDue Process requires that cruuioal stahltes give fair u%rtung. UnitedStcites 11. huiet; 520 US. 259,266 (1997). Vagw statutes do not meet thisrequirement. <strong>The</strong> vagueness doctrine ba~s courts from enforcu~g a smtewritten so Illat "n~en of colntroa illtellige~ice nwst tiecessarily guess at itsthe otheis might Iia\,e no scienter reqoirenient either. Congress's definitiol~ofagglmvated felony does liot nlentio~~ D\R. Section 16(b) is based on afactual messe~cnt of the degree and nature of risk ullhercnt in any crin~e,so long as it is a felony.<strong>The</strong> degree of risk hherent in ma~y crimes is unlu~onn HistoricaU~what is the statistical pmb.nIrility that an escape will explode into violence,meaning and differ as to its application[.]" COIIII~!J, u. Get~erfll or that ajoyriderudl flee at high speed, that afelonyD\VIuill result in injuqCo~tstlrictiotr Co., 269 US. 385,391 (1926). Tlle doctri~~e applies wl~ether to anoti~er? If anyone lu~ous, it uould be a specialist in an obscure area ofa law's uncertainly relates to the crirue or, as in illis case, the punisl~~~~ent sti~dy, not the geneid public. <strong>The</strong> "nature" and "dsW of D\VI, for example,u~l~icli a~ay be imposed. SeeE~,cim, 333 U.S. at 495 (refusing to enforce a are enlotio~rauy charged questiolls. Nevertheless,law punishing alien Larboring); see also LaPa\ze & Scott, Substanti\,eCriminal La!\', § 2.3($, at 127 (cit~tions omitted). "[Nlo one n~ay berequired at peril of life, libert): or propery to speculate as to the limningof penal statutes." hazett~ u. i\'e~i~Jersej; 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939); seealso Cicp of Chicago u. Norales, 527 US 41 (1999) (vagrmcy law toowgue).<strong>The</strong> need for fdr war~dog of what the law requires is inextricably hikedto legislative po\ven. Dltrier: 520 U.S. at 265.<strong>The</strong> fair uTarnilig requirement also reflects the deference dueto tile kgi~hhlre, wluch possesses the power to define crimesand their ponisl~niei~the treated as. . . . [Clonduct n~ynotcrininal r~niess it lias bee11 so defined by [a collipetent]authority . . . before it has taken place ... .520 U.S. at 265 11.5(citations omitted)[n]ueprocess bars courtsfro~ti appl}%ig ai~ovel coosructionof a criminal stahlte to conduct that neither the skltutenor anyprior judicial decisio~~ has fairly disclosed to be within itsscope. I(/. at 266 (siniilar to the way the i3 Post F~tcto Clausebars retroactive application of stahltes).<strong>The</strong> catch-all provisioas are similar to the la\\. at issue in Lnnier in thatneither describes what specific conduct it forbids. ~riier dealt wit11 18U.S.C. 3 242, that ge~~eially prohibits "the dep~jvation of any rights . . .secured .. . by the Constihitioll." hior espl~ied that "the touchstone iswhether the statute, staiding aloue or as construed, made it reasonablyclear at the releva~itime that the defentluit's conduct was cri~~d."520U.S. at 267. In knier the issue WNS whether a defcndar~t could knowwhether his conduct deprived others of rights secured by the Collstihttion.Here, the issne is whether a defendant could h~o~vu~hether his prior o[fenseinvolves the unlegislated and unadjodicated risk punished by the enha~lcementIw:<strong>The</strong>se provisions are similar to a law criminaliziig abo~lions, that theSupreme Coi~rt stivck dow 011 vaguelms grounds in Colnrrffi u Frnnklin,439 U.S. 379, 390-91 (1979). That law cvi~nidized abortions "if there issufficient reason to believe that the feh~s may be viable." <strong>The</strong> court ruledthat tlie\
ironic unconslitulionid sense.)Rather, the first issue ll~ust be fwwd 111 terms of the language of the rele~antcatcll-all provision Does a given offense, for example, escape, unauthorizeduse of a vehicle. D\\T, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, or statato17rape, i~ivolve categorically (buy its nature) a subsr;mtial risk of inju~y toor use of force against mother?Once the issue is properly pl~msetl, defel~se co~lnsel call 11). to throw thccatcll-22 back into the judge's court (pardon the pun), starting wit11 a conlpoundquestion:"Your Honol; is this a question of la\\. or a qwstioa of fact. Ifit is a q~~estion of la\\,, then on \\>hat statute do yo11 rely for yourmwcr?, and if it is a questiol~ of fact, on wl'llat evidence do yourely? My client and I are entitled to know so me can respond."This might ldp the courts to clarify their thinking, on the record, andco~lfronthe consfit~~tio~~al issues. (<strong>The</strong> sanle q~~estionligl~t be posedrlletorically to the prosecution.)Tl~e judge \\ill Likely be unable to cite a statute that states in so nlanywords, for example, "Escape in\&es a serious potential risk of injuly toatlotha;" tllus making it an ACG\violcnt felony Nor can tllc judge cite "e\idence"in the record supporting that proposition, alfhougl~ tile go\'ernments~~pposedly heals the hden of proof at sentencing. Counsei may need toremind the court tllat it cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts. Insiston no evi~lcntiary hearing.lnsisti~~g on an e\identialy hearing on the prior offense's supposed"id~erent daogerousncss" selves to remind the court that the go\zerneenthas he burden of proof and that the defendant 111s procedural rigllts. In theprocess, if the court seriously considels the reqtlest, it may soon realize thatthe answer to the fact question leads to a ntling of law and more probles~s.Coo~~sel nlusl idso point out to the court tile tlislinction between anotie~lse's elelllents ;1nd its "nnhlre." <strong>The</strong> crime's elen~ents are set out in Ian7.It's "n:lt~~rc" is not. ,\ crime's '"naturp" is the subject of perpelual publicdebate and disagreelnent, or presumptio~ls and prejudice. Tl~ese are "legislativefacts," the percel~tions on which lawrakers may rely, but not hefacts upon which sentence enl~ancen~cnt I:I\T~S m:ty relyTlus leads to llle find distinction counsel sl~ould nuke to the coort, theone beh!'een "adjudicative facts" and "legislative facts." \Yiilh respect lostahltol). sentence enhancenlents, courts esist to enable juies to decide disputedadjudicative facts Fimling legiskitive facts is up to Congress. <strong>The</strong>judge l~as no power to find eitherI. See, e l rl~e "career offender" Sel~tencing Guideline(G11ideline4Bl.2), (3) the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3 3142(1),3156(a) (4)), (2) use of ;l firearm UI connection with a "crime of violence,"18 U.S.C. $ 924(c)(3), and (3) 18 U.S.C. $9 1952(a)(2), 1959(a), wluc11incorporate the "crime of violence" at 18 U.S.C. $ 16 for substantive antiracketeeringla\\'s. None are applied or expressed in terms of "elenients" todefine potential offenses. <strong>The</strong> career offender guirleline does not affectstatutoq III;LY~IIILIIII senteoces. Tl~c bail provision affects \\bee u~~prisotinlcntbegins, not ho\v long it will be. Tl~ collstihltiollafilg of rlle otller h\ciprovisions is at le:N as problenlatic because they form part of the substantivecriminal Ian:2. <strong>The</strong> AC&\ am fist e~~:~ctetl in 1986 as part of the "Rrmnn Owner'sProtection Act, Pnb.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, 458-59. In its original fornlonly robbeq and bmgla~y convictions qoalified for enbancement. <strong>The</strong> Anti-Drug Abuse Act o 1986, Title I, Subtitle I, 1401, 100 Stat. 3207-39 to3207-40, expanded it by replacing burglaly and robbe17 \rith the lernls"serious hug offense" and "\violent felony," and including the catch-dl"otllenvise inrolws conduct tint presents a serious potential risk of pl~ysicalinju~y to another" as a test for "!iolent felony"3. <strong>The</strong> aggravated felonyreferred to in 8 U.S.C. $1326, illegal reenfly bedeported &en, got its first "catch-all" provision from the lnunigntioll Actof 1990, hb.L 101.649, 8 501, 104, Stat. 5048. <strong>The</strong> IUegalIn~~nigrationReform and ln~nugrant Kesponsibilily i\ct of 1996 expanded it by loweringthe qua&ing tl~resl~old of the prior sentence of u~~prisonn~ent (suspendedor executed) kon~ five years to one. Pub.1. 104-208, Di!: C, $ 321, 101 SWt.3009-627.4. See, e.8 UnitedStfltes 11. Chnp~t-Gflrzfl, slip. op. 99-51199, 5th Cir.,Marc11 1, 2001 (ruling thz~t 18 U.S.C. 3 l6(b) requires risk of intentional,uot accitlental use of force so that felony D\Y11 is not iw ~ ~~?l~fl~edfe/~~see olso Bnilq' u. United Stoles, 551 U.S 137 (1995)("aseH nleans "toemplo): to avail oneself of, and to can)' out a purpose or action by 111eansof'); Random House Unabridged Dictional). 2097 (2d ed. 1993)'(usemeans "to en~ploy for sonle puqose"); \Y'ebster's New Collegiate Dictional)'21, 449 (1977)("forcen includes "vioIelae,co~~~pulsiotl, or constmintexerted upon or against a person or tiling," and "against" means "in oppositionor hostility to").5. 111 lus affida\it (the court did not hold an evidentia~y hewing), DLZador explained that the 25,000 death figure was out-of-date, misleading,misunde~stood, and misapplied <strong>The</strong> datum is 20 pars old, w11en DW7 wasmore conmon. It includes accidents in wvluch t11c drinking person \vas nota driver and where the blood alcol~olevel (BAC) was as low as .01% (not.08 or ,176). At BAC levels far below .08 :~lcoI~oll~ns little or no effect onmotor skills or perceptions, and wil likely not 11;we "caused" the accirlenteven if the personvl~o dr;mkwas the drivel: hrthel; even if the driwr (1)nvs dri~jking, (2) caused the accident, md (3) alcol~ol ~vas a prosinlatecause, 69% of D\Vl fatalities are tl~e drinking drivers thelnselves. <strong>The</strong>setragedies are not use of force :lgainst "others." In calculating the "risk," thecourt not only inflated the IIIIIII~KI~O~, it completely forgot the de~lon~inatol:<strong>The</strong>re are an estinwted 800,000,000 episodes of drinking ind dri\ringannu-~lly in the countl): i\s niany as 100,000,000 exceed legal Bt\C linuts.111 sum, he explained that the probability a drunk driver will accidentallyl~arm another is a fraction of a percent, far fmrn tlle 10% to 30%R~ifherford ~n~entionetl.6. Sitz took the datum from 4 1.akwe & Scott, Search and Sein~re: aTreatise on the Po~irth he~~dele~rt, $ 10.8, p. 71 (2d ed. 1987). 1.a Favetook it from 71 Georgetowl LJ. 1457 11. 1 (1983). <strong>The</strong> law jojolln~al footnotecites H.R. Rep. No. 867, 971'1 Cong., 2d sess. 7, reprinted bl 1982 U.S.Cong. & Mn~in, New 3367, a report related lo a proposed Alcohol TrafiicSafely - Nation:~l Driver Register Act of 1982. <strong>The</strong> House report's source isulllulo\\~ll.SEPTEMBER ZOO1 VPNW.TCDLP.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 29