Justices, 5-4, Tighten Limits on Power of Judges in Sentencing

[CShine]

The Supreme Court today placed more limits on the power of judges to decide sentences for criminals, voting 5 to 4 to set aside a prison term in a Washington State kidnapping. The four dissenters predicted that the decision would wreak havoc on sentencing procedures in many states, and perhaps in the federal penal system as well. The majority found that the term of more than seven years imposed on Ralph Howard Blakely Jr. violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury because the judge, in going beyond the usual sentencing guidelines, had relied on facts neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury.

"Our Constitution and the common-law traditions it entrenches," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "do not admit the contention that facts are better discovered by a judicial inquisition than by adversarial testing before a jury."

<snip>


In deciding today that the Washington high court was wrong, Justice Scalia wrote, in the biting tone that has become his trademark, "The Framers would not have thought it too much to demand that, before depriving a man of three more years of his liberty, the state should suffer the modest inconvenience" of submitting its accusation to a jury. Today's ruling was a logical outgrowth of the Supreme Court's ruling two years ago in an Arizona case that juries, not judges, must find the "aggravating" factors that make a defendant liable for the death penalty. The same basic principle should apply as well to cases that do not involve capital punishment, the majority held today. In a somewhat unusual line-up, Justice Scalia was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a dissent in which she predicted that "the practical consequences of today's decision may be disastrous."

"The consequences of today's decision will be as far-reaching as they are disturbing," she said, noting that many other states, and the federal government, have sentencing guidelines similar to those in Washington State. Furthermore, she wrote, the full facts of a particular crime are not always known to the jury. Does that mean, she asked, that in every trial the jury must engage in a separate deliberation to sentence a defendant once it has returned a conviction, a procedure not followed except in death-penalty cases. "The court ignores the havoc it is about to wreak on trial courts across the country," Justice O'Connor wrote. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy embraced most of Justice O'Connor's opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politics/25CND-SCOT.html?hp

[DebJ]

1. I can't stand O'Connor! puke. Bush CAN'T like this ruling

too much power to the people!

[curse10]

2. that's a strange line up for the opinion!

although Ruth and Antonin are supposed to be good friends outside of the Court

I'd have to read the opinion, but at first glance it looks like a good decision.

Oddly enough, Scalia is often concerned about violating the rights of the accused.

[geek tragedy]

4. He should stick up for the rights of the accused

Dick and aWol are going to be on trial in a few years.

[geek tragedy]

3. Scalia got one right

This kinda seems obvious. Sentences shouldn't include stuff that you weren't admitted into evidence.

[HawkerHurricane]

5. Why the hell not?

"the full facts of a particular crime are not always known to the jury"

What, is she talking about the excluded evidence? It's excluded for a reason! The judge should not consider it any more than the jury should.