Pubdate: Thu, 13 Jan 2005
Source: USA Today (US)
Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Contact:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466
Author: Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
Note: The 124 page ruling is on line as a .pdf document at 
http://www.november.org/Blakely/BookerDecision.pdf
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/federal+sentencing+guidelines
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Blakely
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

COURT REJECTS SENTENCING RULES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave federal judges wide 
latitude in imposing punishments in an unusual, two-part decision that 
struck down sentencing rules used to set prison time for hundreds of 
thousands of criminals since 1987.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said that 
federal sentencing rules violate defendants' right to a jury trial by 
allowing judges -- rather than juries -- to decide on factors that can 
increase sentences beyond certain ranges.

But a separate 5-4 majority, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, said the rules 
designed by Congress to bring uniformity and fairness to punishments 
shouldn't be junked. Instead, they should be considered by judges on an 
advisory basis rather than as mandates.

The seemingly contradictory opinions created widespread uncertainty over 
the federal sentencing system and could lead thousands of convicts to flood 
courts across the nation with appeals of their sentences.

The disparate opinions came about because one justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
first sided with four colleagues who said the sentencing rules were 
unconstitutional because they forced judges to increase prison time based 
on certain factors -- such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime -- 
without putting such questions to jurors.

Then, without saying why, Ginsburg switched to Breyer's side to form a 
majority that said the remedy for the problem was to allow the rules to 
guide judges toward a sentence, rather than automatically require certain 
prison terms.

Breyer's majority said the decision should allow judges to hand down 
sentences tailored to specific defendants' conduct. He said that judges 
still should look to the guidelines and that sentences should be upheld on 
appeal as long as they are "reasonable."

But Justice Antonin Scalia, who was among those who said the rules were 
unconstitutional, said it is impossible to know how Breyer's plan will 
work. He predicted that it will "wreak havoc" on courts.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray expressed disappointment in the 
decision, which could hamper federal prosecutions. Judges now have greater 
authority to reject prosecutors' grounds for tougher sentences and to find 
their own grounds for handing down lighter sentences than what the 
guidelines dictated.

"There are many things that are unclear" about the decision's impact, said 
Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor. "But one thing that 
appears clear is that judges will have more sentencing power than they have 
had in at least a century." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake