Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Getting to Reasonableness --Crafting an Effective Downward Departure Post-Booker
By Marc S. Raspanti,Jodeen M. Hobbs
Many hoped that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker would be the death knell for the now decades old federal sentencing guideline rubric.1 In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, but rather one piece of information that the court must consider at sentencing.2 Instead of focusing on the guidelines, to the exclusion of other relevant factors, the Booker decision now permits a federal court to impose an individualized sentence as long as the sentence is “reasonable.”3
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the sentencing guidelines are still very much intact and part of the overall process a court utilizes to reach a sentence, despite Booker. The United States Sentencing Commission recently released data confirming that federal judges continue to impose sentences within the guideline range more than 60 percent of the time.4 The data also show that the courts rely on “Booker discretion” to depart
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 email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.