Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Not logged in
Log in | Help

Blakely v. Washington

From dKosopedia

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down a Washington State sentencing scheme almost identical to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines applied in all federal criminal cases on the grounds that it allowed sentence enhancements based upon facts not found by a judge using a beyond a reasonable doubt standard (the same standard used in Apprendi and Ring v. Arizona to require that juries impose death penalties rather than judges and more generally to increase the role of the jury in the criminal justice process). This has immediately resulted in several U.S. Courts of Appeals declaring the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional. See also Criminal Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court in turn declared in the Booker and Fanfan cases that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were indeed unconstitutional and that they would henceforth be advisory only with judges setting sentences unfettered by binding guidelines.

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../b/l/a/Blakely_v._Washington_892a.html"

This page was last modified 19:13, 14 April 2006 by dKosopedia user Allamakee Democrat. Based on work by Andrew Oh-Willeke. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ

View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes

Special pages
Bug reports