Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
The Continuing Struggle for Just, Effective and Constitutional Sentencing After United States v. Booker
By Amy Baron-Evans
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court held that judicial determinations of fact not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant to increase sentences under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. As a remedy, the Court excised 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), which created a presumption in favor of the guideline range (“the court shall . . . unless the court finds . . .”), and excised 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), which was designed to enforce the guidelines (by requiring de novo review of the factual basis, legal basis and extent of any departure, while reviewing within guideline sentences for correctness). The Court made § 3553(a) the governing sentencing law, thus rendering the guidelines “advisory,” and prescribed a unitary standard of review -- “unreasonableness” with regard to § 3553(a) -- for all sentences within or outside the guideline range.
Eighteen months later, seven courts of appeals say the guidelines are presumptively reasonable on appea
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.