Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sentencing And Prior Convictions: The Past, The Future, And The End Of The Prior-Conviction Exception To "Apprendi", Nancy J. King
Sentencing And Prior Convictions: The Past, The Future, And The End Of The Prior-Conviction Exception To "Apprendi", Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This article traces the fascinating history of early efforts to identify defendants and their prior convictions as well as the evolving use of prior convictions in aggravating punishment; examines how contemporary repeat offender penalties fall short of punishment goals and contribute to the racially lopsided profile of punishment today; and critiques potential justifications for the prior conviction exception to the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, arguing that the exception should be abandoned. The article summarizes empirical research testing the relationship between prior convictions and examining the efficacy of repeat offender sentences in reducing recidivism; collects commentary on the use …
Juries And Prior Convictions: Managing The Demise Of The Prior Conviction Exception To "Apprendi", Nancy J. King
Juries And Prior Convictions: Managing The Demise Of The Prior Conviction Exception To "Apprendi", Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This essay offers a menu of procedural alternatives for coping with the potential, some would say inevitable, abandonment of the prior conviction exception to the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey. It compiles options states have used for years to manage jury prejudice when proof of prior conviction status is required, including partial guilty pleas, partial jury waivers, bifurcation of the trial proceeding, stipulations, and rules limiting what information about the prior conviction may be admitted. These options belie the claim that the exception must be preserved to prevent jury prejudice against defendants. For courts and legislatures interested in anticipating …
Reasonableness Review After Booker, Nancy J. King
Reasonableness Review After Booker, Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
About a year ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker declared a new standard for the appellate review of federal sentences-reasonableness. Justice Breyer, writing for the Court, asserted reassuringly that the reasonableness standard is not really new at all because judges had been applying it for years to review sentences for crimes lacking specific guidelines, sentences imposed after probation revocation, and, at least until 2003, sentences based upon departures from the recommended guideline range. Like most new legal standards that take shape case-by-case through the appellate process, reasonableness review is developing incrementally, creeping more clearly into view with …
How Different Is Death? Jury Sentencing In Capital And Non-Capital Cases Compared, Nancy J. King
How Different Is Death? Jury Sentencing In Capital And Non-Capital Cases Compared, Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Drawing upon a recent study of felony jury sentencing in Kentucky, Virginia, and Arkansas, this essay highlights some of the similarities and differences between jury sentencing in capital cases and jury sentencing in non-capital cases. Unlike jury sentencing in capital cases, jury sentencing in non-capital cases includes functional differentials in judge and jury options for sentencing, and fewer controls on arbitrary decision-making. Jury sentencing in both contexts shares the potential for reluctance on the part of elected judges to reduce jury sentences, information gaps on the part of jurors in setting sentences, and, above all, service as a tool in …
Felony Jury Sentencing In Practice: A Three-State Study, Nancy J. King, Rosevelt L. Noble
Felony Jury Sentencing In Practice: A Three-State Study, Nancy J. King, Rosevelt L. Noble
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Jury sentencing in non-capital cases is one of the least understood procedures in contemporary American criminal justice. This Article looks beyond idealized visions of jury sentencing to examine for the first time how felony jury sentencing actually operates in three different states - Kentucky, Virginia, and Arkansas. Dozens of interviews with prosecutors, defenders, and judges, as well as an analysis of state sentencing data, reveal that this neglected corner of state criminal justice provides a unique window through which one can observe some of the most fundamental forces operating in criminal adjudication today. It turns out that jury sentencing in …
Beyond Blakely, Nancy J. King, Susan Riva Klein
Beyond Blakely, Nancy J. King, Susan Riva Klein
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Federal criminal sentencing in the wake of Blakely v. Washington is, to put it charitably, a mess. In holding that Blakely's sentence under the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines was imposed in a manner inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, the decision threatens the operation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the presumptive sentencing systems in fourteen states. In Parts I and II of this article, we address how Blakely has affected the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and how assistant U.S. attorneys, federal public defenders, and district and appellate court judges might proceed in a post-Blakely world. In …
The Origins Of Felony Jury Sentencing In The United States, Nancy J. King
The Origins Of Felony Jury Sentencing In The United States, Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
All of the states admitted to the Union by 1800 eventually abandoned capital punishment for most felonies in favor of discretionary terms of imprisonment. But of these states, only Virginia, Kentucky, and Georgia adopted jury sentencing. In 1786, Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt discretionary terms of hard labor and imprisonment as the primary punishment for felony offenses-delegating to judges the authority to select those terms. In 1796, Virginia opted for jury sentencing, while New York followed Pennsylvania's lead. After 1796, with both Pennsylvania's judge sentencing and Virginia's jury sentencing models to choose from, New Jersey and all of …
"Apprendi" And Plea Bargaining, Nancy J. King, Susan Riva Klein
"Apprendi" And Plea Bargaining, Nancy J. King, Susan Riva Klein
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Before "Apprendi", prosecutors using recidivism as a club could, and did, regularly insist that defendants admit aggravating facts as part of the plea or face additional time. When the prosecutor's threats of added time were not persuasive and the proof of aggravating facts weak, the defendant prior to "Apprendi" could refuse to admit to the aggravating fact, and plead guilty only to the offense without the aggravating fact. Nothing about "Apprendi" gives additional leverage to the prosecutor in this situation. A defendant who, prior to "Apprendi", decided to risk trial rather than face the aggravated sentence will make the same …
Apres Apprendi, Nancy J. King, Susan R. Klein
Apres Apprendi, Nancy J. King, Susan R. Klein
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, ___ U.S. ___ (2000), held as a matter of due process that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for an offense beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a longer forthcoming article, we attempt to answer some of the profound questions raised by the case concerning constitutional oversight of legislative authority to define what is a "crime," questions that will ripen over the years as legislatures look for ways around the rule and litigants test these legislative …