Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
From Jones To Jones: Fifteen Years Of Incoherence In The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin Priester
From Jones To Jones: Fifteen Years Of Incoherence In The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
For over 15 years, the United States Supreme Court has struggled to define the constitutional constraints upon a ubiquitous practice in contemporary American criminal justice: the exercise of factfinding authority by sentencing judges in the course of determining the specific punishment to be imposed upon an individual convicted of a criminal offense. While the Court has permitted much sentencing factfinding to continue unabated, its decisions have identified certain scenarios in which an offender's constitutional rights are violated when a fact found at sentencing creates particular impacts on the punishment. Unfortunately, from the beginning this new constitutional doctrine in criminal procedure …
Apprendi Land Becomes Bizarro World: Policy Nullification And Other Surreal Doctrines In The New Constitutional Law Of Sentencing, Benjamin Priester
Apprendi Land Becomes Bizarro World: Policy Nullification And Other Surreal Doctrines In The New Constitutional Law Of Sentencing, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Imagine a final exam essay answer in constitutional law premised upon the following doctrinal principles: (i) identical findings of fact that produce identical effects on the outcome of a decision should sometimes be constitutional and should sometimes be unconstitutional based on formalistic doctrinal lines unrelated to the substantive merits of the issue being decided; (ii) decision-makers should preferably give vague explanations grounded in moral philosophy rather than specific explanations connected to particular findings; (iii) appellate review of trial court decision-making is unconstitutional; and (iv) courts are entitled to substitute their own policy preferences for those enacted by the legislature on …
The Canine Metaphor And The Future Of Sentencing Reform: Dogs, Tails, And The Constitutional Law Of Wagging, Benjamin Priester
The Canine Metaphor And The Future Of Sentencing Reform: Dogs, Tails, And The Constitutional Law Of Wagging, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Over the last seven years, in what is commonly referred to as the Apprendi line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has promulgated an audacious and controversial constitutional law of sentencing characterized by thinly veiled disdain for legislative sentencing reform measures and high regard for judicial discretion in punishing offenders. The Court's opinions have asserted that its newfound constitutional principle is necessary to safeguard defendants' Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury against legislative encroachment. In truth, the only interest being preserved is judges' assessment of their own importance. The doctrinal and practical effects of the new sentencing doctrine …
Structuring Sentencing: Apprendi, The Offense Of Conviction, And The Limited Role Of Constitutional Law, Benjamin Priester
Structuring Sentencing: Apprendi, The Offense Of Conviction, And The Limited Role Of Constitutional Law, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Every year hundreds of thousands of convicted criminal defendants are sentenced for their crimes, often through the implementation of a broad range of laws of relatively recent vintage such as mandatory minimum provisions and regulations of judicial discretion like the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The policies underlying these sentencing laws are perhaps the most hotly contested issues in all of criminal procedure, with legislative amendments and calls for reform being made every year. Despite their tremendous importance and the constant political activity concerning them, however, the constitutionality of these laws is surprisingly uncertain-the United States Supreme Court has heard an astounding …
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey,' a case that likely will have a significant impact on the administration of criminal justice in federal and state courts. The Court imposed a procedural limitation on prosecutors by restricting the types of facts that may be proven at sentencing rather than at trial. Specifically, the Court adopted a constitutional principle that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum" is an element of the offense of conviction. Under wellestablished constitutional doctrine, the Constitution's full procedural protections, especially the necessity of …
Sentenced For A Crime The Government Did Not Prove: Jones V. United States And The Constitutional Limitations On Factfinding By Sentencing Factors Rather Than Elements Of The Offense, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
The tension between the two principles set out above is an unresolved dilemma for the United States Supreme Court. On the one hand, not every fact relevant to sentencing a criminal defendant warrants the Constitution's full criminal procedure protections. On the other hand, if those protections apply only to the facts selected by the legislature to determine guilt or innocence, the sentencing proceeding may overwhelm the trial in importance because the sentencing facts will determine the defendant's fate to a far greater extent. Justice Scalia described this tension bluntly: Suppose that a State repealed all of the violent crimes in …