home

Supreme Court Booker Brief Filed in Post-Blakely Case

The Supreme Court brief we've all been waiting for has been filed. You can read it here.(50 pages, pdf.)

It is the brief written by contributing TalkLeft blogger TChris in the case of United States vs. Freddie J. Booker, which along with United States v. Fan Fan, well may decide the future of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines following the Court's decision last term in Blakely v. Washington.

The case will be argued October 4 in the Supreme Court--the first day of the new term. You can post some good luck messages to him in the comments. After that, TChris promises to return to blogging at TalkLeft. He's been missed.

Law Prof. Doug Berman of the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, the go-to place for all things Blakely, has links to the Fan Fan brief, and the amici briefs of FAMM, NACDL, The Washington Legal Foundation and the National Association of Federal Defenders. For the non-lawyers among you, the purpose of amici briefs filed as "friends of the court" to Booker and Fan Fan is to bring in collateral information that these outside groups uniquely may be able to present and that the parties don't have room to include in their briefs. According to our sources, the Federal Defenders' brief (pdf.)really shines.

Here are TChris's arguments on behalf of Mr. Booker:

I. THE DISTRICT JUDGE VIOLATED THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS BY FINDING FACTS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, BY NOT SUBMITTING THOSE FACTS TO A JURY, AND BY IMPOSING A LONGER SENTENCE THAN THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AUTHORIZED WITHOUT THOSE FINDINGS

A. When The Maximum Sentence Authorized By Law Depends Upon The Existence Of A Fact, The Fifth And Sixth Amendments Require The Fact To Be Proven To A Jury Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Or Admitted By The Defendant

B. There Is No Principled Distinction Between The Unconstitutional Judicial Fact-Finding In Blakely And The Judicial Fact-Finding That Increased Respondent’s Sentence

C. No Contrary Result Is Compelled By Any Of This Court’s Precedents

D. The District Court Exceeded Its Constitutional Authority By Imposing Additional Punishment Upon The Respondent On The Basis Of Facts It Found By A Preponderance Of The Evidence At Sentencing

II. THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES SURVIVE AND APPLY, BUT THE JURY’S FACTUAL FINDINGS LIMIT RESPONDENT’S GUIDELINE RANGE

A. Blakely Does Not Invalidate The Sentencing Reform Act Or The United States Sentencing Guidelines As A Whole

B. While Courts And Congress May Adopt Jury Trial Procedures For Sentencing Facts In Future Cases, No Jury May Be Convened To Try Sentencing Facts In Respondent’s Case
< Unnamed Officials Warn of 'Spectacular' Al Qaeda Attack in U.S. | Afghan Terror Trial Called a Sham >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft