|
Co-sponsored by the College of Law Program in Criminal Law and Procedure
April 28, 2005
When the Supreme Court recently held that the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines were
unconstitutional in United States v.Booker, the decision sent shockwaves through federal
criminal courts. Lawyers, judges, lawmakers and scholars have since been trying to assess the impact of the case.
The Booker decision consists of two separate opinions. In the first opinion, written by
Justice Stevens, the Court found the Federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional under the Sixth
Amendment because it required judges, and not juries, to determine facts that enhance sentences.
The second opinion, authored by Justice Breyer, crafted a remedy to repair the constitutional infirmity.
Rather than requiring juries to find sentence enhancing facts, the Court excised the statutory
language rendering the guidelines mandatory. The result is an advisory guideline system in which
judges continue to find the facts on which to base their sentences. This passes constitutional
muster in part because judges are not strictly limited to finding predetermined "sentence enhancements,"
but rather engage in a more traditional indeterminate sentencing process.
The Supreme Court's remedy put an abrupt end to nearly two decades of federal sentencing. The
impact of the Booker decision is reverberating in courtrooms and classrooms across the country.
What will it mean for defendants, prosecutors, judges, probations officers and other participants in
the criminal system? Is this truly a revolution or will the business of sentencing go on as usual?
What legislative and judicial responses can be expected?
Please join us as we bring together experts from the federal sentencing world and from the
academy to explore whether and how Booker will affect the future of criminal sentencing.
| 
