How Long? A Close Supreme Court Decision Trades Decades of Sentencing Reform for a Confusing Future

Legal Times, Vol. XXVII, No. 27, July 5, 2004

3 Pages Posted: 5 Aug 2004

See all articles by Stephanos Bibas

Stephanos Bibas

University of Pennsylvania Law School

Abstract

In Blakely v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that juries, not judges, must find facts that raise sentences under state sentencing guidelines and must find these facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has thrown lower courts into disarray, with many courts striking down the Federal Sentencing Guidelines entirely and others warping them by knocking out the upward-enhancement provisions. The Blakely majority envisioned a regime of jury sentencing trials, but these days very few cases make it to juries; most plea bargain. The more likely result is more mandatory minimum penalties, that will ironically mean even more pressure to plea bargain and fewer jury trials in the long run.

Keywords: Apprendi, Blakely, Supreme Court, criminal procedure, sentencing, jury, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Sentencing Guidelines

JEL Classification: K14, K41

Suggested Citation

Bibas, Stephanos, How Long? A Close Supreme Court Decision Trades Decades of Sentencing Reform for a Confusing Future. Legal Times, Vol. XXVII, No. 27, July 5, 2004. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=572605

Stephanos Bibas (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania Law School ( email )

3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
215-746-2297 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/sbibas/

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
80
Abstract Views
1,649
rank
307,560
PlumX Metrics