I have chosen the case Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The case was decided in the end of June, 2004 and I was working for Federal Judge Ronald S.W. Lew when the case was decided. I am interested in the case because I remember how much commotion resulted from the case. The case deals with sentencing guidelines, Washington State’s to be exact. In Blakely, the defendant plead guilty to second degree kidnapping with a statutory standard range of 49 to 53 months in prison. Sentencing guidelines state that a judge may impose a sentence above the standard range if he finds “substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” The judge found that the defendant acted with “deliberate cruelty” and was sentenced to 90 months. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence but the Supreme Court reversed stating that the guidelines allowing for an exceptional sentence with only the determination of the judge violated the defendant’s sixth amendment rights. The Court basically said that a jury must find that he acted with “deliberate cruelty.” Apparently this case poses more questions than answers. In the dissent Justice Breyer wonders: (1) Does the decision apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? (2) If so, must the initial indictment contain all sentencing factors, charged as “elements” of the crime? (3) What, then, are the evidentiary rules? Can the prosecution continue to use, say presentence reports, with their conclusions reflecting layers of hearsay? I will look at some of these questions, and look beyond to see the effect this case has had on cases in the past two months.
Citations: 61-SEP Bench & B. Minn. 24 – This is a 4 page article briefly outlining the Blakely case and raising some questions. There are 5 pending articles that deal with Blakely, three of them are proposals rather than case notes.