Mandatory Sentencing Laws No Longer Mandatory..

[SirFozzie]

Buh?

In a major criminal law decision, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal judges no longer must follow the long-criticized sentencing guidelines in effect since 1987.

The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the U.S. Justice Department, which had defended as constitutional the federal sentencing guidelines that now apply to more than 60,000 criminal defendants each year.

Thousands of cases nationwide have been on hold awaiting a ruling by the high court. The decision, which makes the guidelines advisory instead of mandatory, was seen as the most important criminal law decision of the court's term.

The court reaffirmed the principle in its ruling in June striking down a similar state law that any facts necessary to support a longer sentence must be admitted by the defendant or proven to the jury. A judge alone cannot decide those facts.

In the court's main opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal judges are no longer required to apply the guidelines, and only can consider them, along with certain other sentencing criteria, in deciding a defendant's punishment.

[SirFozzie]

dola: I may be wrong, but hooo boy does this open a can of worms, does this mean EVERY SINGLE CASE since 1987 that fell under mandatory sentencing laws (such as three-strikes rules, etcetera) can be appealed now?

[QuikSand]

This is a very big deal.

[sachmo71]

Yes, it was just a confirmation of a ruling they made last year.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

dola: I may be wrong, but hooo boy does this open a can of worms, does this mean EVERY SINGLE CASE since 1987 that fell under mandatory sentencing laws (such as three-strikes rules, etcetera) can be appealed now?

Or, asked another way, does albionmoonlight's workload increase by a factor of eleventy-billion over the next couple of years?

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

over the next couple of days, decent commentary will be collected here

http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing

I may try to have a post for the board generally after I digest the case, for whatever my opinion is worth.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

dola: I may be wrong, but hooo boy does this open a can of worms, does this mean EVERY SINGLE CASE since 1987 that fell under mandatory sentencing laws (such as three-strikes rules, etcetera) can be appealed now?

I'm not sure this would affect three strikes laws, because this applies to Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I do agree though that this is a huge deal for lots and lots of individuals. There are a number of cases that get brought to the public view where a person has been sentenced in Federal court to mandatory 20 to 30 year terms, but if their crime had been filed in State court they would have gotten dramatically lower sub 5 year sentences some including periods of probation.

[ISiddiqui]

YAY!

As for sentancing that happened since 1987, I don't think they can rechallenge it, because they were sentanced under the law as it was at the time.

[Grid Iron]

It's a great ruling for criminals (and bad for citizens) in California, where there are a lot of liberal judges who want to give lenient sentences. It's a very bad ruling for criminals (and good for citizens) in the southern states, where all judges need to have the nickname "maximum" before being appointed to the bench.

It won't affect California's Three Strikes law in any way.

Minimum mandatory sentences under Federal law will not be affected.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

YAY!

As for sentancing that happened since 1987, I don't think they can rechallenge it, because they were sentanced under the law as it was at the time.

This isn't a "change of law" but a ruling that the law was unconstitutional. It will affect *every* case falling under these rules since 1987.