That fact does not mean that we believe that every sentence gives rise to a Sixth Amendment violation. Nor do we believe that every appeal will lead to a new sentencing hearing. That is because we expect reviewing courts to apply ordinary prudential doctrines, determining, for example, whether the issue was raised below and whether it fails the 'plain error' test. It is also because, in cases not involving a Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted or whether it will instead be sufficient to review a sentence for reasonableness may depend upon application of the harmless-error doctrine.

It seems like in a large number of cases, courts will be able to revisit improperly imposed sentences, and provided they now find the sentences to be reasonable, no change will be required.

Again, these are impressions based upon first reading of the opinions, so I may revise them.

TChris is in trial in Northern Wisconsin. I'm sure he's very relieved and will weigh in as soon as he's had an opportunity to review the decisions and reflect on them. I hope Peter G. weighs in as well.

Update: Law Prof Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy agrees.

I forecast a lot of litigation from, and little relief for, prisoners with final convictions.