This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with McMillan v Pennsylvania in 1986, crescendoed in Blakely v Washington and United States v Booker in 2004-2005, and continues in cases such as Oregon v Ice, is a colossal judicial failure. First, the Court has failed to provide a logically coherent, constitutionally based answer to the fundamental question of what limits the Constitution places on the roles played by the institutional actors in the criminal justice system. It has failed to recognize that defining, adjudicating, and punishing crimes implicates both the Sixth Amendment Jury Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses, and it has twisted the Jury Clause into ...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...
In 1987, the Nation’s first attempt to standardize federal sentencing came in the form of the United...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This article offers a historically grounded account of the twists and turns in the Supreme Court\u27...
This Article is, in effect, the second half of the author\u27s argument against the Supreme Court\u2...
This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines-whether mandatory or discretionary-viol...
This Article argues that the Supreme Court, as evinced by its recent spate of criminal jury decision...
This encyclopedia entry summarizes the pendulum-swings that led the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New...
This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the...
This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission ...
This article charts a path for criminal sentencing in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent bombshe...
In recent years, federal criminal defendants have enjoyed great success in challenging “residual cla...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...
In 1987, the Nation’s first attempt to standardize federal sentencing came in the form of the United...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with ...
This article offers a historically grounded account of the twists and turns in the Supreme Court\u27...
This Article is, in effect, the second half of the author\u27s argument against the Supreme Court\u2...
This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines-whether mandatory or discretionary-viol...
This Article argues that the Supreme Court, as evinced by its recent spate of criminal jury decision...
This encyclopedia entry summarizes the pendulum-swings that led the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New...
This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the...
This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission ...
This article charts a path for criminal sentencing in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent bombshe...
In recent years, federal criminal defendants have enjoyed great success in challenging “residual cla...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...
In 1987, the Nation’s first attempt to standardize federal sentencing came in the form of the United...
(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court\u27s tr...