Number: RS21876
Title: Judge, Jury and Sentencing Guidelines: Their Respective Roles Following the Supreme Courts Decision in Blakey v. Washington
Authors: Charles Doyle, American Law Division 
Abstract: In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that except in the case of recidivists a judge could not sentence a criminal defendant to a term of imprisonment greater than that which the statutory maximum assigned to the crime for which he had been convicted by the jury. In Blakely v. Washington, U.S. (2004), the Court made it clear that Apprendi meant that when sentencing a criminal defendant under sentencing guidelines a judge may proceed up the severity scale only so far as the specific findings of the jury will allow, Blakely v. Washington, U.S. (2004). Facts new to a jurys verdict or to a defendant's guilty plea may not be relied upon for a judicially determined upward departure to impose a sentence more severe than the verdict or plea alone will support. Although it arose out of a state sentencing proceeding, Blakely has obvious implications for the federal guidelines system. It appears that to the extent to which that system permits sentence enhancements based on judicial findings of relevant conduct, sentencing factors, or grounds for upward departures, the facts upon which they are based must have been presented to the jury or the right must have been clearly waived. Although it may constitute prosecutorial inconvenience, the obligation apparently may be honored by including the facts establishing the relevant conduct, sentencing factors or grounds for upward departure in the indictment or information prior to trial. In cases decided by plea without a trial, it apparently need only be reflected in the plea agreement.
Pages: 6
Date: September 15, 2004