« Ind. Decisions - More on Save the Valley Ruling | Main | Env't - Indiana closes blue bag dump site »

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Law - Weighing in on U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on Blakely application

Several Indiana papers have local stories today weighing in on what the U.S. Supreme Court decisions yesterday in U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan on the application of the Court's opinion last year in Blakely v. Washington to the U.S. sentencing guidelines. (I confess I find the Court's decisions confusing and am not ready to venture opinions.)

Here are some quotes from the Indianapolis Star story:

In a 5-4 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, found that the federal guidelines ran afoul of the court's 2004 ruling that said the Sixth Amendment requires juries, not judges, to determine facts that can lengthen sentences.

But rather than eliminate the guidelines or let lower courts work out how to apply the 2004 ruling within the guidelines, the court, in a separate 5-4 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, prescribed a sweeping fix of its own. The guidelines, it said, will be used in an "advisory" manner to help federal judges come up with "reasonable" sentences. The court said that solves the constitutional problems with the guidelines and preserves Congress' intent in adopting the rules.

John D. Tinder, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Indiana, said the ruling give judges more discretion than they've had in 18 years. "In some respects this will be welcome," said Tinder, who cautioned that he had only browsed the ruling.

But criminal justice experts said Wednesday that the rulings could also bring more confusion to the process. "The court, by fiat or constitutional interpretation, has now created a system of advisory guidelines, so what we have now is essentially unconstrained judicial sentencing," said Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Bowman noted that many federal judges have complained that the guidelines left them too little flexibility in determining sentences, and Wednesday's ruling might seem to be what they wanted. "But I think they'll come to regret what has happened here, because it's something that's far more likely to provoke a response from the Department of Justice and Congress that they'll find unpleasant." It's unclear, Bowman and others said, whether Wednesday's rulings offer most of the 170,000 current federal inmates a chance to appeal their sentences. Most agree that nearly all inmates are likely to think they have appeals, inspiring thousands to file.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a story here. The Munster Times has two stories, this one quoting Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford, and this one headlined "High court decision backed by some region attorneys."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 13, 2005 08:19 AM
Posted to General Law Related