Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568349
 
 

Footnotes (48)



 


 



Five Years of Appellate Problems after Booker


F. Andrew Hessick


University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law

Carissa Byrne Hessick


University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law

March 10, 2010

Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 22, p. 85, 2009

Abstract:     
In United States v. Booker the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, committing sentencing decisions to the discretion of the district courts. But the Booker decision did not end with discretion. The Supreme Court also instituted appellate reasonableness review of all sentencing decisions. These two aspects of Booker’s remedy – discretion in district courts and appellate review for reasonableness – pull in opposite directions. Discretion means choice; there is no single correct sentence in any case. Substantive appellate review, by contrast, limits that choice. Appellate review promotes uniformity, and in particular adherence to the Guidelines, by cabining discretion. Since Booker, the Court has not resolved the tension between discretion and appellate review. Instead, the Court has sought to maintain district court discretion, while at the same time using appellate review to promote adherence to the Guidelines. This commentary notes that the incompatibility of discretion and appellate review has manifested itself in at least three different ways. The Court has issued decisions with conflicting language, abandoned ordinary features of presumptions and appellate review, and suggested imprecisely defined new legal tests. This commentary identifies instances where these developments have occurred and traces the resulting confusion and conflict in the circuits.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 7

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 12, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Hessick, F. Andrew and Hessick, Carissa Byrne, Five Years of Appellate Problems after Booker (March 10, 2010). Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 22, p. 85, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568349

Contact Information

F. Andrew Hessick
University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law ( email )
332 S. 1400 East Front
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
United States
Carissa Byrne Hessick (Contact Author)
University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law ( email )
332 S. 1400 East Front
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 498
Downloads: 36
Footnotes:  48

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 1.156 seconds