Difference between revisions of "Blakely v. Washington"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (rv vandal)
Line 1: Line 1:
WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS WITH LOVE FROM EBAUMS
+
In '''''Blakely v. Washington''''', 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that facts, other than a prior conviction, supporting a sentence above the standard sentencing range in a legislatively prescribed sentencing guidelines system must be found be a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
 +
 
 +
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote the Court decision, while Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Stephen Breyer]] and Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] were in dissent.
 +
 
 +
This case concerned a state criminal proceeding.  The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] extended this ''Blakely'' rule to the federal Sentencing Guidelines in ''[[United States v. Booker]]'', 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
 +
 
 +
==External Links==
 +
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1632 Case] at FindLaw (registration may be required)
 +
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Revision as of 18:10, 8 June 2008

In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that facts, other than a prior conviction, supporting a sentence above the standard sentencing range in a legislatively prescribed sentencing guidelines system must be found be a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court decision, while Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice William Rehnquist were in dissent.

This case concerned a state criminal proceeding. The U.S. Supreme Court extended this Blakely rule to the federal Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

External Links

  • Case at FindLaw (registration may be required)