patentnonsense
June 25, 2004, 07:40 AM
Blakely v. Washington,
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1632.pdf
says that automatically-increased sentences, based on factors which were not properly found by a jury, is contrary to the Sixth Amendment. This case arose under state law, but it is hard to see how the "upward departure" provisions in the federal sentencing guidelines can possibly stand up after this.
It's a 5-4 case with very acrimonious opinion and dissents. Justice Scalia's opinion is loaded with stinging rebuttals of the dissent. He continues to take the historical Constitution seriously, using a legal historian's methods to ask what the Sixth Amendment actually meant when it was ratified. This use of historical methodology is itself important: you can easily predict what would happen if the Court ever dares to look at a Second Amendment case in this light.
This opinion continues the line of cases which began with Apprendi v. New Jersey. It's a hard-won victory, but a very important one.
The "upward departure" provisions in the federal sentencing guidelines are often used to increase federal sentences enormously, and are a big reason why many federal defendants don't dare go to trial. Part of the game has been to keep the jury in the dark about the seriousness of a guilty verdict on a seemingly minor charge. (This leads to the "weeping jury" phenomenon, when jurors realize that they've just destroyed someone's life without knowing it.)
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1632.pdf
says that automatically-increased sentences, based on factors which were not properly found by a jury, is contrary to the Sixth Amendment. This case arose under state law, but it is hard to see how the "upward departure" provisions in the federal sentencing guidelines can possibly stand up after this.
It's a 5-4 case with very acrimonious opinion and dissents. Justice Scalia's opinion is loaded with stinging rebuttals of the dissent. He continues to take the historical Constitution seriously, using a legal historian's methods to ask what the Sixth Amendment actually meant when it was ratified. This use of historical methodology is itself important: you can easily predict what would happen if the Court ever dares to look at a Second Amendment case in this light.
This opinion continues the line of cases which began with Apprendi v. New Jersey. It's a hard-won victory, but a very important one.
The "upward departure" provisions in the federal sentencing guidelines are often used to increase federal sentences enormously, and are a big reason why many federal defendants don't dare go to trial. Part of the game has been to keep the jury in the dark about the seriousness of a guilty verdict on a seemingly minor charge. (This leads to the "weeping jury" phenomenon, when jurors realize that they've just destroyed someone's life without knowing it.)