Footnotes (328)



Apprendi's Limits

Craig Green

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law

September 2004

This article argues that the recent decision Blakely v. Washington did not decide, explicitly or implicitly, whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional. It also claims that the best theory of jury-trial rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey would uphold the Guidelines because they do not result in a punishment above the crime of conviction's statutory maximum. The idea that the legislative character of statutory maxima is important stems from separation of powers principles. Congress, not the Commission, is responsible for defining crimes, and thereby for prescribing how much punishment is authorized by a jury's guilty verdict. Any sentence below the sentence authorized by the jury is constitutionally permissible, regardless of whether that sentence is determined by rule (per the Guidelines) or by discretion (per indeterminate sentencing). Finally, the article suggests that the chaos arising after Blakely sheds light on the roles of certain repeat-player institutions that participate in constitutional rulemaking.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 103

Keywords: Apprendi, Blakely, jury trial, fifth amendment, sixth amendment

JEL Classification: K14, K41

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 12, 2004  

Suggested Citation

Green, Craig, Apprendi's Limits (September 2004). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=587922 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.587922

Contact Information

Craig Green (Contact Author)
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law ( email )
1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,145
Downloads: 57
Download Rank: 293,935
Footnotes:  328