UPDATE: Don’t bother reading this post, as there are much better reviews of these extremely important decisions at SCOTUSBlog and cross-posted by lawprof Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy, plus numerous other links to analyses (good and bad).
Just out from SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Kimbrough v. United States (Opinion by Ginsberg, Thomas and Alito dissenting, Scalia concurring). The holding, in essence, reaffirmed Booker’s holding that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory and upheld a district judge’s decision, grounded in 18 USC 3553(a) not to impose a sentence “greater than necessary” to serve legitimate sentencing objectives by rejecting the 100 to 1 crack guidelines.
[Also, decisions in Gall (reinstating sentencing way below guidelines) and Watson (destroys long-standing interpretation of gun “use and possess” to mean having a gun within 20 miles). Very big day for criminal law and defendants. Way too much to post about today, but these decisions are HUGE.]
The Court’s holding as to cocaine base, and rejection of the government’s position that the 100 to 1 ratio was required by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (note that this was before all criminal laws were required to have catchy pro-American acronyms), was largely due to the Sentencing Commission’s acknowledgment that the guidelines have long been severely disproportionate, based upon the wholly mistaken notion that was promoted by law enforcement back in 1986 that crack was the new killer evil drug that would destroy mankind, while powder cocaine was just a past-time at Studio 54.
Sorry about being flip here, but this could be a very significant decision. Beyond its implications for crack, it appears to make an effort to send a message to the circuits that the Supreme Court meant what it said in Booker, and that they should stop contorting their black-robed bodies to undermine the decision. As long as a sentencing judge checks everything off the grocery list including the advisory Guidelines, grounds the decision 3553 language and it can pass the “reasonable” sniff test, then the sentence stands.
The door has been thrown open. Now let’s see which judges chose to walk through.
Just out from SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Kimbrough v. United States (Opinion by Ginsberg, Thomas and Alito dissenting, Scalia concurring). The holding, in essence, reaffirmed Booker’s holding that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory and upheld a district judge’s decision, grounded in 18 USC 3553(a) not to impose a sentence “greater than necessary” to serve legitimate sentencing objectives by rejecting the 100 to 1 crack guidelines.
[Also, decisions in Gall (reinstating sentencing way below guidelines) and Watson (destroys long-standing interpretation of gun “use and possess” to mean having a gun within 20 miles). Very big day for criminal law and defendants. Way too much to post about today, but these decisions are HUGE.]
The Court’s holding as to cocaine base, and rejection of the government’s position that the 100 to 1 ratio was required by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (note that this was before all criminal laws were required to have catchy pro-American acronyms), was largely due to the Sentencing Commission’s acknowledgment that the guidelines have long been severely disproportionate, based upon the wholly mistaken notion that was promoted by law enforcement back in 1986 that crack was the new killer evil drug that would destroy mankind, while powder cocaine was just a past-time at Studio 54.
Sorry about being flip here, but this could be a very significant decision. Beyond its implications for crack, it appears to make an effort to send a message to the circuits that the Supreme Court meant what it said in Booker, and that they should stop contorting their black-robed bodies to undermine the decision. As long as a sentencing judge checks everything off the grocery list including the advisory Guidelines, grounds the decision 3553 language and it can pass the “reasonable” sniff test, then the sentence stands.
The door has been thrown open. Now let’s see which judges chose to walk through.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.