This essay surveys the sentencing issues left open by Rita v. United States and considers how the presumption of reasonableness is likely to operate in practice and how rebutable it is, the roles of safe harbors and individual judges\u27 policy disagreements, and the importance of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg as the swing Justices in this area. This line of cases has drifted far from its roots in a Sixth Amendment concern for juries. Though the resulting sentencing policies may be substantively desirable, the Court cannot articulate how they are rooted in the Sixth Amendment\u27s concern for juries
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court excised two provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Term, Cunningham v. California offers the Supreme Court a rare opportunity to bring order to it...
This essay surveys the sentencing issues left open by Rita v. United States and considers how the pr...
This symposium essay explores the impact of Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough on state and federal sentencin...
United States v. Booker held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ( Guidelines ), as they were app...
Modern federal appellate review of sentences is a recent phenomenon introduced by the Sentencing Ref...
For fifteen years, sentencing in federal court had been governed by the United States Sentencing Gu...
When the United States Supreme Court instructed federal appellate courts to use a reasonableness s...
This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the...
About a year ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker declared a new standard for the appel...
This encyclopedia entry summarizes the pendulum-swings that led the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New...
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no lon...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
Three things are clear from the Supreme Court\u27s opinion in Cunningham v. California, in which the...
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court excised two provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Term, Cunningham v. California offers the Supreme Court a rare opportunity to bring order to it...
This essay surveys the sentencing issues left open by Rita v. United States and considers how the pr...
This symposium essay explores the impact of Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough on state and federal sentencin...
United States v. Booker held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ( Guidelines ), as they were app...
Modern federal appellate review of sentences is a recent phenomenon introduced by the Sentencing Ref...
For fifteen years, sentencing in federal court had been governed by the United States Sentencing Gu...
When the United States Supreme Court instructed federal appellate courts to use a reasonableness s...
This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the...
About a year ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker declared a new standard for the appel...
This encyclopedia entry summarizes the pendulum-swings that led the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New...
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no lon...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
Three things are clear from the Supreme Court\u27s opinion in Cunningham v. California, in which the...
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court excised two provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Term, Cunningham v. California offers the Supreme Court a rare opportunity to bring order to it...