Summary
Supreme Court decisions in 2002 and 2004 raised questions about the use of judge-determined facts in jury trials to increase the length of sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines. In US v. Booker, decided in January of this year, the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that this use of facts was indeed a violation of the right to jury trial in the Sixth Amendment. The Court's remedy, adopted by a different 5-4 majority, was to make the sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. Details on why both judges and members of Congress should react cautiously to the new sentencing landscape after Booker are discussed.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Sentencing Reform in the Wake of Booker
Supreme Court decisions in 2002 and 2004 raised questions about the use of judge-determined facts injury trials to increase the length of sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines. In United States v. Booker, decided in January of this year, the Co...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
