On June 24, 2004, the Supreme Court, by a sharply divided 5-to-4 vote, invalidated the criminal sentencing system used by the State of Washington. Building on the essential premise of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a 5-to-4 majority held that only juries - and not judges - may increase criminal sentences beyond the maximums suggested by the statutory guidelines. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated: “When a judge inflicts a punishment that the jury’s verdict does not allow . . . the judge exceeds his proper authority.” While the Court did not specifically address the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, several of the dissenting Justices argued that the scope of the ruling is so broad that it casts significant doubt on the constitutionality of some of the essential provisions of the Federal Guidelines. For example, Justice O’Connor wrote: “Over 20 years of sentencing reform are all but lost; and tens of thousands of criminal judgments are in jeopardy.” She added: “All criminal sentences imposed under the federal and state guidelines since Apprendi was decided in 2000 arguably remain open to collateral attack.” Because this decision is expected to have a marked impact on the Federal Sentencing System, we have set forth below a collection of resources relating to Blakely; and we will update these resources as future developments require. |
PART I - FEDERAL DECISIONS
U.S. v. Brent Croxford, 324 F.Supp.2d 1230 (D. Utah July 7, 2004) - Judge Cassell's Memorandum Opinion in which he declared that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines cannot be applied in a child pornography case because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely. [See, "Judge Tosses Federal Guides," by Angie Welling, Deseret Morning News, June 30, 2004.]
PART II - LEGAL MEMORANDA AND BRIEFS
Blakely v. Washington (Supreme Court Case)
PART III
- ARTICLES
"Judge Tosses Federal Guides," by Angie Welling, Deseret Morning News, June 30, 2004.
"Sentencing Ruling Hits Utah," by Angie Welling, Deseret Morning News, June 29, 2004.
"Sense and Sentencing," by Kate Smith and William Stuntz, The New York Times, June 29, 2004.
"Sentencing Bombshell," an Editorial from the Washington Post, June 29, 2004.
"Sentencing Decision's Reach is Far and Wide," by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, June 27, 2004.
"Justices, in 5-4 Vote, Raise Doubts on Sentencing Rules," by Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times, June 25, 2004.
"Supremes Give Juries More Power Over Sentencing Decisions," by Tony Mauro, Legal Times, June 25, 2004.
PART IV - MISCELLANEOUS
http://blakelyblawg.blogspot.com/ - a Web site devoted to the latest developments in the aftermath of Blakely v. Washington.
Email dated June 24, 2004 from Larry Kupers, Esq. of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to all Federal Public Defenders regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington.
Email dated June 29, 2004 from John S. Wallenstein, Esq. of Mineola, NY, in which he described a ruling by Judge Spatt (E.D.N.Y.) calling for a special verdict on an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement in order to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington.
Copyright © 2004, Punch and Jurists, Ltd.