We hear federal judges all over the country are continuing (in layspeak: postponing) sentencing hearings as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Blakely this week (see here and here.) No one yet is certain how to apply it. In our federal court (Colorado), we have it on good authority that the following colloquy occurred yesterday between a judge and a terrorism prosecutor:

The Judge called Blakely a "cataclysmic event" in criminal law. He told an AUSA from the terrorism section in DC to read it on the plane ride home. He opined that "If the turbulance doesn't make you toss your cookies, Blakely will."

[hat tip DL, Esq.]

Update: Sunday's New York Times examines the impact of the decision here.

Statement of Barry Scheck, President-Elect, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on today's Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington:

Beyond a doubt, today’s decision in Blakely spells the end of sentencing guidelines -- as we know them. The decision does not represent a step backward from the goal of sentencing reform, but a great leap forward, because it stands for the proposition that no defendant in a U.S. court will be punished for an unproven crime.

The key issue in Blakely was that the judge found a fact, after the defendant’s plea, that increased his sentence by almost three years. It has always been NACDL's position that facts that substantially increase a defendant's sentence should be admitted by the defendant at his guilty plea or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Today’s decision is a logical application of that principle. As Justice Scalia said in the opinion of the Court, it is too much to believe that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was “duped” into taking the wrong side on such an important issue as fairness in criminal proceedings.

In NACDL’s friend of the court brief, authors Adam Steinman, Sheryl Gordon
McCloud and David M. Porter wrote that "failing to apply Apprendi to exceptional sentences upward creates a situation where a defendant may be punished for a crime that no jury has considered -- much less delivered a verdict of conviction -- and for which the ... reasonable doubt standard has not and cannot be met."

Defendants got one win today from the Supreme Court, and it's a pretty big one. Many states around the country have sentencing schemes which call for a certain sentence or range of sentence for an offense unless the judge determines that there are aggravating factors--in which case a greater sentence can be imposed. The Supreme Court today ruled that for the Judge to decide on the aggravating factor, rather than a jury, violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under its Apprendi decision (the same Apprendi it decided today did not apply retroactively in death cases.)

Here's the syllabus of Blakely v. Washington (html). The text of the opinion (html) is here. It was written by Justice Scalia. The basic facts at issue:

by TChris

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that could have a profound impact on the future of the federal sentencing guidelines. In an attempt to persuade his wife not to divorce him, Ralph Blakely forced her to travel from their home in Washington to family property in Montana. It's easy to understand why Blakely's wife wanted a divorce: during much of the trip, Blakely made her ride in a coffin in the back of his pickup truck with her wrists bound and head wrapped in duct tape. He also threated to shoot their son, who managed to escape on the way to Montana. Blakely was arrested and returned to Washington, where he eventually agreed to plead guilty to two reduced charges while maintaining his innocence.

The maximum sentence was 10 years, but Washington's sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of 53 months. Deciding that deliberate cruelty and violence were aggravating factors that justified a longer sentence, the judge imposed 90 months. Blakely argues that the longer sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey because the aggravating factors that increased his sentence were not submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Washington courts disagreed, holding that Apprendi only requires a jury to determine a fact if the existence of the fact would increase the statutory maximum sentence.