Judges and Judiciary
Jan. 14, 2005
Let's Wait to See What Results From Sentencing-Guidelines Decision
Forum Column - By Rory K. Little - Two days ago, a five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker that the federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional insofar as they require judges to aggravate sentences based on facts not found by a jury. The majority was the same "odd-bedfellows" five (Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg) that decided Blakely v. Washington last June and Apprendi v. New Jersey in 2000. So this ruling was no surprise.
Rory K. Little
Joseph W. Cotchett Jr. Professor of Law UC Hastings College of the Law
Email: littler@uchastings.edu
Rory clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court and also served as an associate deputy attorney general in 1996-97
By Rory K. Little
Two days ago, a five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In