United States v. Dunnigan

Background

Sharon Dunnigan, charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, went to trial and testified in her own defense, denying the accusations. The Government called several witnesses and later produced a rebuttal witness who said he bought crack from Dunnigan; a jury convicted her. The district court found Dunnigan had been untruthful at trial and applied a two-level sentence increase under the Sentencing Guidelines, producing a 51-month sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the enhancement unconstitutionally punished defendants who testify, and the Supreme Court agreed to review that ruling.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Constitution allows a sentencing increase under USSG §3C1.1 when a judge finds a defendant gave willful, material false testimony at trial. Relying on the Sentencing Commission’s commentary and the federal perjury statute definition (18 U.S.C. §1621), the Court held such an enhancement is permissible. It explained that the enhancement applies only when the judge makes findings that the testimony was willfully false about material facts and is not a blanket punishment for testifying. The Court said the enhancement furthers sentencing goals like retribution and incapacitation and does not violate the right to testify, but trial judges must make clear, case-specific findings when the enhancement is contested.

Real world impact

After this decision, judges may increase a convicted defendant’s sentence when they find willful perjury at trial, but they must make specific factual findings supporting that conclusion. Not every defendant who testifies and is convicted will receive the enhancement, and the ruling preserves the right to testify while strengthening incentives for truthful sworn testimony.