Law Commons^™

The Myth Of The All-Powerful Federal Prosecutor At Sentencing, Adam M. Gershowitz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Prosecutors are widely considered to be the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. And federal prosecutors are particularly feared. While some recent scholarship casts doubt on the power of prosecutors, the prevailing wisdom is that prosecutors run the show, with judges falling in line and doing as prosecutors recommend.

This Article does not challenge the proposition that prosecutors are indeed quite powerful, particularly with respect to sentencing. There are many structural advantages built into the system that combine to give prosecutors enormous influence over sentences. For example, prosecutors have considerable power to bring a slew of charges …

Same Grid, Different Results: Criminal Sentencing Disparities Between Arkansas Counties, Alexis Stevens

Arkansas Law Review

Abraham Davis is a resident of Fort Smith, Arkansas—and a convicted felon. In May of 2017, the Sebastian County Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, charged Davis with criminal mischief in the first degree, as a Class D felony, for purposely destroying the property of another. Davis’s charge resulted in a criminal sentence ranging from as little as probation to as much as 6 years jail time and/or up to $10,000.00 in fines. This sentencing determination is generally allocated to the judge and prosecutor. However, victim intervention persuaded the court to release Davis on probation, sparing him from a much harsher …

The Application Of Neuroscience Evidence On Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting A Guideline For Neuro-Evidence, Yu Du

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

One Step Forward, One Step Back: Emergency Reform And Appellate Sentence Review In Maine, Amy K. Tchao

Maine Law Review

Perhaps in no other area of the law is a trial court's power greater than when it is given the task of criminal sentencing. Historically and traditionally, the trial court judge has been given the widest latitude of discretion in determining a proper sentence once a criminal defendant has been found guilty. Indeed, the task of sentencing has been deemed a matter of discretion rather than a question of law. As a result, trial judges historically have not articulated reasons for the sentences that they impose. However, with very few standards or criteria to measure the appropriateness of their decisions, …

Ohio's New Sentencing Guidelines: A "Middleground" Approach To Crack Sentencing, Dan Haude

Akron Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Sentencing In The United States: The Antithesis Of The Rule Of Law, Maryann Grover

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

The Johnson & Johnson Problem: The Supreme Court Limited The Armed Career Criminal Act's "Violent Felony" Provision—And Our Children Are Paying, Shelby Burns

Pepperdine Law Review

The Armed Career Criminal Act and United States Sentencing Guidelines prescribe sentence enhancements based upon a defendant’s prior convictions. In particular, these federal sentencing tools contain violent felony provisions that outline the requirements a state criminal statute must satisfy for a conviction to constitute a violent felony, making the convicted person eligible for a federal sentence enhancement. However, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) severely limited the scope of both sentencing tools’ violent felony provisions, making it more difficult for certain crimes to …

Sentencing Through The Media: How The Media Can Help Strengthen Legal Sanctions Against Sexual Assault By College Athletes, Samantha C. Huddleston

Marquette Sports Law Review

None

United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley

Maine Law Review

In the consolidated case of United States v. Pho, the government appealed two district court rulings that imposed criminal sentences outside of the range provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). At separate trials, both defendants pied guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as crack). Rejecting the Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the district court imposed sentences that were below the Guidelines' range, but above the statutory mandatory minimum. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated both sentences and remanded the …

Punishing On A Curve, Adi Leibovitch

Northwestern University Law Review

Does the punishment of one defendant depend on how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge’s docket? This Article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence a given offense more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this phenomenon “punishing on a curve.”

Consequently, this Article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts and courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges punish on a curve, a court’s jurisdictional scope systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. …

Sentence Creep: Increasing Penalties In Michigan And The Need For Sentencing Reform, Anne Yantus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The governor and several legislators have requested review of Michigan’s sentencing practices with an eye toward sentence reform. Michigan leads the country in the average length of prison stay, and by internal comparisons the average minimum sentence has nearly doubled in the last decade. This Article explores cumulative increases to criminal penalties over the last several decades as reflected in amendments to the sentencing guidelines, increased maximum sentences, harsh mandatory minimum terms, increased authority for consecutive sentencing, wide sentencing discretion for habitual and repeat drug offenders, and tough parole practices and policies. The reality for legislators is that it is …

The Wrong Kind Of Innocence: Why United States V. Begay Warrants The Extension Of "Actual Innocence" To Exclude Erroneous, Non-Capital Sentences, Greg Siepel

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …

Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Note examines the limited-remand approach in comparison with the approaches taken by the different circuits. Part I discusses the history of the Sentencing Guidelines and the cases, up to and including Booker, that completely changed the way the Sentencing Guidelines were used. Part II sets forth the history of the traditional plain error standard of review and the contemporary "Plain Error Problem." Part III examines the limited-remand approach and compares it with the approach taken in other circuits. Part IV argues that the limited-remand approach is the best of a list of bad possible choices but that the Ninth …

The Laboratory Of Judicial Debate: Examining A Commodity Based Approach To Punishing Sex Offences, Lucas R. Franklin

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will examine commodity theory as a system for assigning punishment for sexual offenses in the context of the 2007 circuit split over defining “crime of violence” under § 2L1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Part II will discuss the problem of punishing sex offenses and describe Donald Dripps' proposed commodity theory solution. Part III will discuss criticisms of using commodity theory as a basis for punishing sexual offenses. Part IV will provide background information on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines generally and § 2L1.2 of the Guidelines specifically and explain why the circuit split serves as an ideal opportunity to …

Doubting Demaree: The Application Of Ex Post Facto Principles To The United States Sentencing Guidelines After United States V. Booker, James R. Dillon

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adding Fuel To The Fire: United States V. Booker And The Crack Versus Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity, Briton K. Nelson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique Of The Sentencing Guidelines, Jackie Gardina

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines-whether mandatory or discretionary-violate the constitutional separation of powers by impermissibly interfering with a criminal jury's constitutional duty to act as a check against government overreaching. This Article posits that the inclusion of the criminal jury in Article III of the Constitution was intended as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances. This Article also submits a proposal for restoring the constitutional balance through the creation of a "guideline jury system" within the current guideline structure. The implementation of a guideline jury system would fill the constitutional void created …

Appellate Review Under The New Felony Sentencing Guidelines: Where Do We Stand , Mark P. Painter

Cleveland State Law Review

Now that it has been more than four years since Senate Bill 2 became effective, this is a good time to analyze the cases to see where courts stand in their interpretations of the guidelines. This article will review the case law and show how different courts have dealt with the legislation. My analysis concentrates on one aspect of the guidelines in particular: the standard of review that appeals courts have used to determine the propriety of sentences. To illustrate my points, I focus on the issue of when judges can impose maximum prison sentences under the guidelines, one of …

On Seeking Controlling Law And Re-Seeking Death Under Section 2929.06 Of The Ohio Revised Code , Margery B. Koosed

Cleveland State Law Review

This article explores and analyzes the two-pronged legal dilemma that confronted the court in State v. Marshall: in Ohio, finding the correct sentencing law is often difficult; and a recent amendment to the resentencing portion of that law, S.B. 258, destroys the efficiency that was characteristic of Ohio's previous resentencing framework. Consequently, Part II of this article examines the facts and holding of State v. Marshall and suggests that finding the applicable law must be simplified. Practitioner handbooks are often confusing and incomplete, in part as the Ohio legislature generates an ever-changing body of law. Justice and the lives of …

A Proposal For Sentence Reform In Florida, Alan C. Sundberg, Kenneth J. Plante, Kenneth R. Palmer

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proposal For Determinate Sentencing In New York: The Effect On An Offender's Due Process Rights, John D. Winter

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note examines the differences between indeterminate sentencing, the goal of which is rehabilitative, and determinate sentencing. It looks at the constitutional and procedural safeguards due to prisoners at sentencing. Finally, the Note looks at legislation introduced in New York and its proposals for changing the sentencing procedures.

Discretionarily Enhanced Sentences Based Upon Suspected Perjury At Trial , Robert M. Wetterer

Fordham Urban Law Journal

A judge's discretion is a vital aspect of our judicial system. However, a judge must be cognizant of the impact that his decisions and his beliefs have upon a defendant's constitutional rights. This note addresses the concern of judges enhancing sentencing of defendants convicted of a crime because the judges feel that at trial, the defendant may have committed perjury. Ultimately, it is important that the defendant not be penalized without a proper trial or proceeding to determine whether or not perjury actually occurred. In doing so, rights are protected and justice is served.