Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 Source: Odessa American (TX) Copyright: 2005 Odessa American Contact: http://www.oaoa.com/index.html Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/708 Author: David J. Lee, Odessa American Note: The 124 page ruling is on line as a .pdf document at http://www.november.org/Blakely/BookerDecision.pdf Also: to help understand the decision the blog of Douglas A. Berman, Professor of Law, has been recommended http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/ Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/federal+sentencing EFFECT OF SENTENCING CHANGE UNKNOWN Guidelines Now 'Advisory' In Nature The chief of the Midland U.S. Attorney's office said it may be some time before those in the law system understand the ramifications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to alter federal sentencing guidelines. "We work hundreds of cases through the system a year, and what does this mean? We don't know yet," he said. "Judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be studying this over the next few weeks to see how it affects us or how it'll change the sentencing procedure. So, we don't know the answer to that yet." The court found in the United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan that portions of the sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional. In ordering changes, the court found 5-4 that judges have been improperly adding time to some criminals' prison stays. The high court stopped short of scrapping the nearly two-decade-old guideline system, intended to make sure sentences don't vary widely from courtroom to courtroom. "It's a very complex opinion," Klassen said. The court said in the second half of a two-part ruling that judges should consult the guidelines in determining reasonable sentences - but only on an advisory basis. "The guidelines are now advisory in nature," Assistant U.S. Attorney John Klassen, chief of the Midland U.S. Attorney's office, said. "The judge has to take them into account, but he is not bound by law to follow them anymore." Before Wednesday, judges were required to consider, for instance, whether someone was a key leader or organizer in a drug case, or in an embezzlement case, whether the suspect was in a position of trust, Klassen said. If the judge found that, time was automatically added. "Before for the judge it was mandatory to consider those," Klassen said. "The Supreme Court struck that down. They said it's a jury issue. They said, as long as it's not mandatory, the judge has discretion to make those findings." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake