The biggest sentencing case yesterday was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington. A front-page story in the NY Times this morning by Linda Greehouse, headlined "Justices, in 5-4 Vote, Raise Doubts on Sentencing Rules," begins:
The Supreme Court invalidated the criminal sentencing system of the State of Washington on Thursday in a decision that also cast doubt on whether the 20-year-old federal sentencing guidelines can survive a constitutional challenge.This is Schriro v. Summerlin, written up in an entry here yesterday afternoon - scroll down to read it. More from Greenhouse's report:Bitterly split in a 5-to-4 decision that cut across the court's usual ideological lines, the justices continued a profound five-year-long debate over the respective roles of judges and juries in criminal sentencing. In this case, they ratcheted that debate up to a new level that left the federal guidelines in constitutional limbo and cast doubt on the validity of thousands of sentences, at both the state and federal level. Sentencing in about a dozen states is likely to be affected by the ruling.
In a separate decision, the court rejected the retroactive application of a 2002 death penalty ruling, placing as many as 100 inmates in five states back on death row.
In the Washington guidelines case, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion held that the Washington system, permitting judges to make findings that increase a convicted defendant's sentence beyond the ordinary range for the crime, violated the right to trial by jury protected by the Sixth Amendment. The facts supporting increased sentences must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, Justice Scalia said.Nina Totenberg had an excellent report on these decisions this morning on NPR. Access it here.While the federal system is considerably more complex, it places judges in much the same role, empowering them to make the factual findings that determine the ultimate sentence and requiring nothing more to support those findings than a "preponderance of the evidence." That is the legal system's lowest standard of proof, while "beyond a reasonable doubt" is its highest.
While Justice Scalia said that "the federal guidelines are not before us, and we express no opinion on them," that statement appeared to be simply marking time.
Here is Tony Mauro's coverage of the two decisions at Law.com. The lead:
In a 5-4 ruling that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said would have a "disastrous" impact on state and federal sentencing, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that any aggravating facts that increase a defendant's sentence must be proven to a jury, not decided by a judge."Jury Role In Raising Sentences Affirmed: Ruling May Affect States' Procedures" is the headline to Charles Lane's article in the Washington Post this morning that begins:The ruling in Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632, underscores and strengthens the Court's 2000 ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, and could expand its scope to affect the federal sentencing guidelines. The ruling is sure to accelerate the growing debate over the wisdom of sentencing reforms enacted over the last two decades.
A bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled yesterday that only juries, not judges, may increase criminal sentences beyond the maximums suggested by statutory guidelines, a decision that throws into doubt sentencing procedures used by nine states and possibly the federal government.[More] A new blog, Sentencing Law and Policy, authored by Douglas A. Berman, Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University.
A host of links to coverage of yeserday's sentencing decisions, from SCOTUSlaw.
Posted by Marcia Oddi at June 25, 2004 07:04 AM