blakely
washington
argued
march
decided
june
counsel
record
petitioner
blakely
jeffrey
fisher
davis
wright
tremaine
llp
seattle
wa
respondent
washington
john
knodell
iii
prosecuting
attorney
ofc
ephrata
wa
petitioner
pleaded
guilty
kidnaping
estranged
wife
facts
admitted
plea
standing
alone
supported
maximum
sentence
months
judge
imposed
sentence
finding
petitioner
acted
deliberate
cruelty
statutorily
enumerated
ground
departing
standard
range
washington
appeals
affirmed
rejecting
petitioner
argument
sentencing
procedure
deprived
federal
constitutional
right
jury
determine
beyond
reasonable
doubt
facts
legally
essential
sentence
held
facts
supporting
petitioner
exceptional
sentence
neither
admitted
petitioner
found
jury
sentence
violated
sixth
amendment
right
trial
jury
pp
case
requires
apply
rule
apprendi
new
jersey
ther
fact
prior
conviction
fact
increases
penalty
crime
beyond
prescribed
statutory
maximum
must
submitted
jury
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
relevant
statutory
maximum
apprendi
purposes
maximum
judge
may
impose
based
solely
facts
reflected
jury
verdict
admitted
defendant
judge
imposed
sentence
based
solely
facts
admitted
guilty
plea
washington
law
requires
exceptional
sentence
based
factors
used
computing
sentence
petitioner
sentence
analogous
upheld
mcmillan
pennsylvania
williams
new
york
greater
state
law
authorized
based
verdict
alone
regardless
whether
judge
authority
impose
enhanced
sentence
depends
judge
finding
specified
fact
one
several
specified
facts
aggravating
fact
remains
case
jury
verdict
alone
authorize
sentence
pp
commitment
apprendi
context
reflects
respect
longstanding
precedent
need
give
intelligible
content
fundamental
constitutional
right
jury
trial
pp
case
constitutionality
determinate
sentencing
implemented
way
respects
sixth
amendment
framers
paradigm
criminal
justice
ideal
limited
state
power
accomplished
strict
division
authority
judge
jury
preserved
without
abandoning
determinate
sentencing
sacrifice
fairness
defendant
pp
app
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
stevens
souter
thomas
ginsburg
joined
filed
dissenting
opinion
breyer
joined
rehnquist
kennedy
joined
except
part
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
breyer
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
joined
ralph
howard
blakely
petitioner
washington
writ
certiorari
appeals
washington
division
june
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
petitioner
ralph
howard
blakely
pleaded
guilty
kidnaping
estranged
wife
facts
admitted
plea
standing
alone
supported
maximum
sentence
months
pursuant
state
law
imposed
exceptional
sentence
months
making
judicial
determination
acted
deliberate
cruelty
app
consider
whether
violated
petitioner
sixth
amendment
right
trial
jury
petitioner
married
wife
yolanda
evidently
difficult
man
live
diagnosed
various
times
psychological
personality
disorders
including
paranoid
schizophrenia
wife
ultimately
filed
divorce
abducted
orchard
home
grant
county
washington
binding
duct
tape
forcing
knifepoint
wooden
box
bed
pickup
truck
process
implored
dismiss
divorce
suit
related
trust
proceedings
couple
son
ralphy
returned
home
school
petitioner
ordered
follow
another
car
threatening
harm
yolanda
shotgun
ralphy
escaped
sought
help
stopped
gas
station
petitioner
continued
yolanda
friend
house
montana
finally
arrested
friend
called
police
state
charged
petitioner
kidnaping
rev
code
ann
upon
reaching
plea
agreement
however
reduced
charge
kidnaping
involving
domestic
violence
use
firearm
see
petitioner
entered
guilty
plea
admitting
elements
kidnaping
firearm
allegations
relevant
facts
case
proceeded
sentencing
ton
kidnaping
class
felony
state
law
provides
person
convicted
class
felony
shall
punished
confinement
exceeding
term
ten
years
provisions
state
law
however
limit
range
sentences
judge
may
impose
washington
sentencing
reform
act
specifies
petitioner
offense
kidnaping
firearm
standard
range
months
see
seriousness
level
kidnaping
app
offender
score
based
box
standard
range
months
firearm
enhancement
judge
may
impose
sentence
standard
range
finds
substantial
compelling
reasons
justifying
exceptional
sentence
act
lists
aggravating
factors
justify
departure
recites
illustrative
rather
exhaustive
nevertheless
reason
offered
justify
exceptional
sentence
considered
takes
account
factors
used
computing
standard
range
sentence
offense
state
gore
judge
imposes
exceptional
sentence
must
set
forth
findings
fact
conclusions
law
supporting
reviewing
reverse
sentence
finds
clearly
erroneous
standard
insufficient
evidence
record
support
reasons
imposing
exceptional
sentence
gore
supra
citing
pursuant
plea
agreement
state
recommended
sentence
within
standard
range
months
hearing
yolanda
description
ing
however
judge
rejected
state
mendation
imposed
exceptional
sentence
months
months
beyond
standard
maximum
justified
sentence
ground
petitioner
acted
deliberate
cruelty
statutorily
enumerated
ground
departure
cases
iii
faced
unexpected
increase
three
years
sentence
petitioner
objected
judge
accordingly
conducted
bench
hearing
featuring
testimony
petitioner
yolanda
ralphy
police
officer
medical
experts
hearing
issued
findings
fact
concluding
defendant
motivation
commit
kidnapping
complex
contributed
mental
condition
personality
disorders
pressures
divorce
litigation
impending
trust
litigation
trial
anger
troubled
interpersonal
relationships
spouse
children
misguidedly
intended
forcefully
reunite
family
attempt
subservient
desire
terminate
lawsuits
modify
title
ownerships
benefit
defendant
methods
homogeneous
motive
used
stealth
surprise
took
advantage
victim
isolation
immediately
employed
physical
violence
restrained
victim
tape
threatened
injury
death
others
immediately
coerced
victim
providing
information
threatening
application
knife
violated
subsisting
restraining
order
app
judge
adhered
initial
determination
deliberate
cruelty
petitioner
appealed
arguing
sentencing
procedure
deprived
federal
constitutional
right
jury
determine
beyond
reasonable
doubt
facts
legally
essential
sentence
state
appeals
affirmed
app
relying
washington
rejection
similar
challenge
gore
supra
washington
denied
discretionary
review
granted
certiorari
ii
case
requires
us
apply
rule
expressed
apprendi
new
jersey
fact
prior
conviction
fact
increases
penalty
crime
beyond
prescribed
statutory
maximum
must
submitted
jury
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
rule
reflects
two
longstanding
tenets
criminal
jurisprudence
truth
every
accusation
defendant
afterwards
confirmed
unanimous
suffrage
twelve
equals
neighbours
blackstone
commentaries
laws
england
accusation
lacks
particular
fact
law
makes
essential
punishment
accusation
within
requirements
common
law
accusation
reason
bishop
criminal
procedure
ed
principles
acknowledged
courts
treatises
since
earliest
days
graduated
sentencing
compiled
relevant
authorities
apprendi
see
thomas
concurring
need
repeat
apprendi
involved
new
jersey
statute
authorized
sentence
despite
usual
maximum
judge
found
crime
committed
purpose
intimidate
race
color
gender
handicap
religion
sexual
orientation
ethnicity
quoting
stat
ann
west
supp
ring
arizona
applied
apprendi
arizona
law
authorized
death
penalty
judge
found
one
ten
aggravating
factors
case
concluded
defendant
constitutional
rights
violated
judge
imposed
sentence
greater
maximum
imposed
state
law
without
challenged
factual
finding
apprendi
supra
ring
supra
case
petitioner
sentenced
three
years
statutory
maximum
standard
range
acted
deliberate
cruelty
facts
supporting
finding
neither
admitted
petitioner
found
jury
state
nevertheless
contends
apprendi
violation
relevant
statutory
maximum
months
maximum
class
felonies
observes
exceptional
sentence
may
exceed
limit
see
precedents
make
clear
however
statutory
maximum
apprendi
purposes
maximum
sentence
judge
may
impose
solely
basis
facts
reflected
jury
verdict
admitted
defendant
see
ring
supra
maximum
receive
punished
according
facts
reflected
jury
verdict
quoting
apprendi
supra
harris
plurality
opinion
cf
apprendi
supra
facts
admitted
defendant
words
relevant
statutory
maximum
maximum
sentence
judge
may
impose
finding
additional
facts
maximum
may
impose
without
additional
findings
judge
inflicts
punishment
jury
verdict
alone
allow
jury
found
facts
law
makes
essential
punishment
bishop
supra
judge
exceeds
proper
authority
judge
case
imposed
exceptional
sentence
solely
basis
facts
admitted
guilty
plea
facts
alone
insufficient
washington
explained
reason
offered
justify
exceptional
sentence
considered
takes
account
factors
used
computing
standard
range
sentence
offense
gore
case
included
elements
kidnaping
use
firearm
see
judge
imposed
sentence
solely
basis
plea
reversed
see
maximum
sentence
years
years
apprendi
judge
imposed
upon
finding
hate
crime
death
ring
judge
imposed
upon
finding
aggravator
state
defends
sentence
drawing
analogy
upheld
mcmillan
pennsylvania
williams
new
york
neither
case
point
mcmillan
involved
sentencing
scheme
imposed
statutory
minimum
judge
found
particular
fact
specifically
noted
statute
authorize
sentence
excess
otherwise
allowed
underlying
offense
cf
harris
supra
williams
involved
regime
allowed
judge
compel
rely
facts
outside
trial
record
determining
whether
sentence
defendant
death
judge
sentenced
defendant
death
giving
reason
thus
neither
case
involved
sentence
greater
state
law
authorized
basis
verdict
alone
finally
state
tries
distinguish
apprendi
ring
pointing
enumerated
grounds
departure
regime
illustrative
rather
exhaustive
distinction
immaterial
whether
judge
authority
impose
enhanced
sentence
depends
finding
specified
fact
apprendi
one
several
specified
facts
ring
aggravating
fact
remains
case
jury
verdict
alone
authorize
sentence
judge
acquires
authority
upon
finding
additional
state
sentencing
procedure
ply
sixth
amendment
petitioner
sentence
iii
commitment
apprendi
context
reflects
respect
longstanding
precedent
need
give
intelligible
content
right
jury
trial
right
mere
procedural
formality
fundamental
reservation
power
constitutional
structure
suffrage
ensures
people
ultimate
control
legislative
executive
branches
jury
trial
meant
ensure
control
judiciary
see
letter
xv
federal
farmer
reprinted
complete
storing
ed
describing
jury
secur
ing
people
large
rightful
controul
judicial
department
john
adams
diary
entry
reprinted
works
john
adams
adams
ed
common
people
complete
control
every
judgment
judicature
legislature
letter
thomas
jefferson
abbé
arnoux
july
reprinted
papers
thomas
jefferson
boyd
ed
called
upon
decide
whether
people
best
omitted
legislative
judiciary
department
say
better
leave
legislative
jones
apprendi
carries
design
ensuring
judge
authority
sentence
derives
wholly
jury
verdict
without
restriction
jury
exercise
control
framers
intended
reject
apprendi
resigned
one
two
alternatives
first
jury
need
find
whatever
facts
legislature
chooses
label
elements
crime
labels
sentencing
factors
matter
much
may
increase
punishment
may
found
judge
mean
example
judge
sentence
man
committing
murder
even
jury
convicted
illegally
possessing
firearm
used
commit
making
illegal
lane
change
fleeing
death
scene
even
apprendi
critics
advocate
absurd
result
cf
dissenting
jury
function
circuitbreaker
state
machinery
justice
relegated
making
determination
defendant
point
something
wrong
mere
preliminary
judicial
inquisition
facts
crime
state
actually
seeks
second
alternative
legislatures
may
establish
legally
essential
sentencing
factors
within
limits
limits
crossed
perhaps
sentencing
factor
tail
wags
dog
substantive
offense
mcmillan
means
operation
law
must
go
far
must
exceed
judicial
estimation
proper
role
judge
subjectivity
standard
obvious
petitioner
argued
kidnaping
deliberate
cruelty
essentially
kidnaping
charge
avoided
pleading
lesser
offense
conceded
might
held
irrelevant
see
wash
petitioner
sentence
exceeded
standard
maximum
almost
washington
cases
upheld
exceptional
sentences
times
standard
maximum
see
state
oxborrow
exceptional
sentence
standard
maximum
sentence
state
branch
exceptional
sentence
standard
maximum
sentence
go
far
cases
answer
legal
analysis
provide
far
yardstick
always
possible
disagree
judgments
never
refute
whether
sixth
amendment
incorporates
manipulable
standard
rather
apprendi
rule
depends
plausibility
claim
framers
left
definition
scope
jury
power
judges
intuitive
sense
far
far
think
claim
plausible
reason
framers
put
guarantee
constitution
unwilling
trust
government
mark
role
jury
iv
reversing
judgment
state
find
ing
determinate
sentencing
schemes
unconstitutional
brief
respondent
case
whether
determinate
sentencing
constitutional
implemented
way
respects
sixth
amendment
several
policies
prompted
washington
adoption
determinate
sentencing
including
proportionality
gravity
offense
parity
among
defendants
see
rev
code
ann
nothing
said
impugns
salutary
objectives
justice
argues
determinate
sentencing
schemes
involving
judicial
factfinding
entail
less
judicial
discretion
indeterminate
schemes
constitutionality
latter
implies
constitutionality
former
post
argument
flawed
number
levels
first
sixth
amendment
terms
limitation
judicial
power
reservation
jury
power
limits
judicial
power
extent
claimed
judicial
power
infringes
province
jury
indeterminate
sentencing
increases
judicial
discretion
sure
expense
jury
traditional
function
finding
facts
essential
lawful
imposition
penalty
course
indeterminate
schemes
involve
judicial
factfinding
judge
like
parole
board
may
implicitly
rule
facts
deems
important
exercise
sentencing
discretion
facts
pertain
whether
defendant
legal
right
lesser
sentence
makes
difference
insofar
judicial
impingement
upon
traditional
role
jury
concerned
system
says
judge
may
punish
burglary
years
every
burglar
knows
risking
years
jail
system
punishes
burglary
sentence
another
added
use
gun
burglar
enters
home
unarmed
entitled
sentence
reason
sixth
amendment
facts
bearing
upon
entitlement
must
found
jury
even
assuming
restraint
judicial
power
unrelated
jury
role
sixth
amendment
objective
far
clear
apprendi
disserves
goal
determinate
schemes
entail
less
judicial
power
indeterminate
schemes
judicial
power
determinate
schemes
whether
apprendi
increases
judicial
power
overall
depends
determinate
schemes
given
choice
two
alternatives
justice
simply
assumes
net
effect
favor
judges
empirical
basis
prediction
indeed
evidence
points
exactly
way
kansas
found
apprendi
infirmities
state
regime
state
gould
legislature
responded
reestablishing
indeterminate
sentencing
applying
apprendi
requirements
current
regime
see
act
may
ch
sess
laws
pp
codified
stat
ann
cum
supp
brief
kansas
appellate
defender
office
amicus
curiae
result
less
judicial
power
justice
breyer
argues
apprendi
works
detriment
criminal
defendants
plead
guilty
depriving
opportunity
argue
sentencing
factors
judge
post
nothing
prevents
defendant
waiving
apprendi
rights
defendant
pleads
guilty
state
free
seek
judicial
sentence
enhancements
long
defendant
either
stipulates
relevant
facts
consents
judicial
factfinding
see
apprendi
appropriate
waivers
procured
may
continue
offer
judicial
factfinding
matter
course
defendants
plead
guilty
even
defendant
stands
trial
may
consent
judicial
factfinding
sentence
enhancements
may
well
interest
relevant
evidence
prejudice
trial
understand
apprendi
possibly
work
detriment
free
think
costs
outweigh
benefits
render
see
merit
justice
breyer
contention
apprendi
unfair
criminal
defendants
respond
enacting
robbery
crime
prosecutors
elements
bargain
post
citing
bibas
judicial
sentence
enhancements
world
guilty
pleas
yale
bargaining
already
exists
regard
sentencing
factors
defendants
either
stipulate
contest
facts
make
applicable
difference
bargaining
sentencing
factors
bargaining
elements
latter
probably
favors
defendant
every
new
element
prosecutor
threaten
charge
also
element
defendant
threaten
contest
trial
make
prosecutor
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
moreover
given
sprawling
scope
criminal
codes
power
affect
sentences
making
even
nonbinding
sentencing
recommendations
already
shortage
terrorem
tools
prosecutors
disposal
see
king
klein
apprendi
plea
bargaining
stan
rev
every
prosecutorial
bargaining
chip
mentioned
professor
bibas
existed
exactly
evaluation
apprendi
fairness
criminal
defendants
must
compare
regime
replaced
defendant
warning
either
indictment
plea
routinely
see
maximum
potential
sentence
balloon
little
five
years
much
life
imprisonment
see
based
facts
proved
peers
beyond
reasonable
doubt
facts
extracted
trial
report
compiled
probation
officer
judge
thinks
likely
got
right
got
wrong
conceive
measure
fairness
find
fault
utterly
speculative
bargaining
effects
justice
breyer
identifies
regime
champions
suffice
say
measure
exists
one
framers
left
us
implausibility
justice
breyer
contention
apprendi
unfair
criminal
defendants
exposed
lineup
amici
case
hard
believe
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
somehow
duped
arguing
wrong
side
justice
breyer
authority
asking
defendants
protected
apprendi
article
written
criminal
defense
lawyer
law
professor
former
prosecutor
see
post
citing
bibas
supra
association
american
law
schools
directory
law
teachers
justice
breyer
also
claims
apprendi
attenuate
connection
real
criminal
conduct
real
punishment
encouraging
plea
bargaining
restricting
alternatives
adversarial
factfinding
post
short
answer
former
point
even
assuming
questionable
premise
apprendi
encourage
plea
bargaining
see
supra
sixth
amendment
written
benefit
choose
forgo
protection
guarantees
right
jury
trial
guarantee
particular
number
jury
trials
actually
take
place
defendants
elect
waive
right
example
government
moment
particularly
oppressive
prove
constitutional
provision
guaranteeing
availability
option
disserved
justice
breyer
general
argument
apprendi
undermines
alternatives
adversarial
factfinding
much
criticism
apprendi
assault
jury
trial
generally
esteem
processes
post
supports
well
argument
either
constitution
traditions
entrenches
however
admit
contention
facts
better
discovered
judicial
inquisition
adversarial
testing
jury
see
blackstone
commentaries
justice
breyer
may
convinced
equity
regime
favors
views
ones
bound
uphold
ultimately
decision
turn
whether
degree
trial
jury
impairs
efficiency
fairness
criminal
justice
one
certainly
argue
values
better
served
leaving
justice
entirely
hands
professionals
many
nations
world
particularly
following
traditions
take
course
one
shred
doubt
however
framers
paradigm
criminal
justice
ideal
administrative
perfection
ideal
limited
state
power
accomplished
strict
division
authority
judge
jury
apprendi
held
every
defendant
right
insist
prosecutor
prove
jury
facts
legally
essential
punishment
dissenters
alternative
right
end
matter
petitioner
sentenced
prison
three
years
beyond
law
allowed
crime
confessed
basis
disputed
finding
acted
deliberate
cruelty
framers
thought
much
demand
depriving
man
three
years
liberty
state
suffer
modest
inconvenience
submitting
accusation
unanimous
suffrage
twelve
equals
neighbours
blackstone
commentaries
rather
lone
employee
state
judgment
washington
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
ralph
howard
blakely
petitioner
washington
writ
certiorari
appeals
washington
division
june
justice
justice
breyer
joins
chief
justice
justice
kennedy
join
part
dissenting
legacy
today
opinion
whether
intended
consolidation
sentencing
power
state
federal
judiciaries
says
congress
state
legislatures
want
constrain
sentencing
discretion
judges
bring
uniformity
sentencing
cost
dearly
congress
faced
burdens
imposed
extension
apprendi
present
context
either
trim
eliminate
altogether
sentencing
guidelines
schemes
years
sentencing
reform
thus
little
moment
majority
expressly
declare
guidelines
schemes
unconstitutional
ante
residents
fond
saying
relevant
inquiry
one
form
effect
apprendi
new
jersey
ring
arizona
scalia
concurring
effect
today
decision
greater
judicial
discretion
less
uniformity
sentencing
find
implausible
framers
considered
result
required
due
process
clause
sixth
amendment
practical
consequences
today
decision
may
disastrous
respectfully
dissent
one
need
look
history
leading
following
enactment
washington
guidelines
scheme
appreciate
damage
today
decision
cause
prior
washington
like
federal
government
employed
indeterminate
sentencing
scheme
washington
criminal
code
separated
felonies
three
broad
categories
class
carrying
sentence
years
life
class
carrying
sentence
years
class
carrying
sentence
years
rev
code
ann
see
also
sentencing
reform
act
laws
ch
sentencing
judges
conjunction
parole
boards
virtually
unfettered
discretion
sentence
defendants
prison
terms
falling
anywhere
within
statutory
range
including
probation
jail
sentence
rev
code
ann
boerner
lieb
sentencing
reform
washington
crime
justice
tonry
ed
hereinafter
boerner
lieb
judges
authorized
choose
prison
probation
exceptions
subject
review
abuse
discretion
see
also
boerner
sentencing
washington
pp
system
unguided
discretion
inevitably
resulted
severe
disparities
sentences
received
served
defendants
committing
offense
similar
criminal
histories
boerner
lieb
cf
senate
report
precursor
federal
sentencing
reform
act
day
federal
judges
mete
unjustifiably
wide
range
sentences
offenders
similar
histories
convicted
similar
crimes
committed
similar
circumstances
disparities
whether
occur
time
initial
sentencing
parole
stage
traced
directly
unfettered
discretion
law
confers
judges
parole
authorities
responsible
imposing
implementing
sentence
indeed
rather
reflect
legally
relevant
criteria
disparities
often
correlated
constitutionally
suspect
variables
race
boerner
lieb
see
also
breyer
federal
sentencing
guidelines
key
compromises
upon
rest
hofstra
rev
elimination
racial
disparity
one
reason
behind
congress
creation
federal
sentencing
commission
counteract
trends
state
legislature
passed
sentencing
reform
act
act
laudable
purposes
mak
ing
criminal
justice
system
accountable
public
nsur
ing
punishment
criminal
offense
proportionate
seriousness
offense
commensurate
punishment
imposed
others
committing
similar
offenses
rev
code
ann
act
neither
increased
statutory
sentencing
ranges
three
types
felonies
though
eliminate
statutory
mandatory
minimum
class
felonies
reclassified
substantive
offenses
laws
ch
merely
placed
meaningful
constraints
discretion
sentence
offenders
within
statutory
ranges
eliminated
parole
thus
evidence
legislature
attempting
manipulate
statutory
elements
criminal
offenses
circumvent
procedural
protections
bill
rights
rather
lawmakers
trying
bring
uniformity
transparency
accountability
otherwise
sentencing
corrections
system
ed
principle
except
unguided
discretion
boerner
lieb
quoting
zimring
making
punishment
fit
crime
consumers
guide
sentencing
reform
occasional
paper
ii
far
disregarding
principles
due
process
jury
trial
right
majority
today
suggests
washington
reform
served
passage
act
defendant
charged
second
degree
kidnaping
like
petitioner
idea
whether
receive
sentence
probation
ultimate
sentencing
determination
turn
much
idiosyncracies
particular
judge
specifics
defendant
crime
background
defendant
know
facts
offense
history
considered
relevant
sentencing
judge
parole
board
passage
act
defendant
charged
second
degree
kidnaping
knows
presumptive
sentence
good
idea
types
factors
sentencing
judge
consider
deciding
whether
sentence
outside
range
guaranteed
meaningful
appellate
review
protect
arbitrary
sentence
boerner
lieb
consulting
one
sheet
practitioners
identify
applicable
scoring
rules
criminal
history
sentencing
range
available
sentencing
options
case
criminal
defendants
still
face
statutory
maximum
sentences
least
know
much
real
consequences
actions
washington
move
system
guided
discretion
served
equal
protection
principles
well
past
years
substantial
reduction
racial
disparity
sentencing
across
state
racial
disparities
exist
accounted
differences
legally
relevant
variables
offense
viction
prior
criminal
record
udicial
authority
impose
exceptional
sentences
departure
authority
shows
little
evidence
disparity
correlated
race
reduction
tly
traceable
constraining
effects
guidelines
namely
presumptive
range
limits
imposition
exceptional
sentences
outside
ranges
instance
sentencing
judges
still
retain
unreviewable
discretion
offender
cases
certain
sex
offender
cases
impose
alternative
sentences
far
lenient
contemplated
guidelines
extent
unjustifiable
racial
disparities
persisted
washington
imposition
alternative
sentences
lesson
powerful
racial
disparity
correlated
unstructured
unreviewed
discretion
ibid
see
also
washington
state
minority
justice
commission
crutchfield
weis
engen
gainey
disparities
exceptional
sentences
washington
state
final
report
xceptional
sentences
major
source
racial
disparities
sentencing
majority
disagree
determinate
sentencing
schemes
like
washington
serve
important
constitutional
values
ante
thus
majority
says
case
whether
determinate
sentencing
constitutional
implemented
way
respects
sixth
amendment
ibid
extension
apprendi
present
context
impose
significant
costs
legislature
determination
particular
fact
historically
element
warrants
higher
sentence
constitutional
prohibition
guidelines
schemes
majority
decision
today
exacts
substantial
constitutional
tax
costs
substantial
real
majority
approach
fact
increases
upper
bound
judge
sentencing
discretion
element
offense
thus
facts
historically
taken
account
sentencing
judges
assess
sentence
within
broad
range
drug
quantity
role
offense
risk
bodily
harm
must
charged
indictment
submitted
jury
winship
simply
legislature
rather
judge
constrains
extent
facts
may
used
impose
sentence
within
statutory
range
alone
enough
threaten
continued
use
sentencing
guidelines
schemes
additional
costs
example
legislature
might
rightly
think
factors
bearing
sentencing
prior
bad
acts
criminal
history
considered
jury
determination
defendant
guilt
character
evidence
traditionally
limits
guilt
phase
criminal
proceedings
tendency
inflame
passions
jury
see
fed
rule
evid
imwinkelried
giannelli
gilligan
leaderer
courtroom
criminal
evidence
ed
legislature
desires
uniform
consideration
factors
sentencing
want
impact
jury
initial
determination
guilt
state
may
bear
additional
expense
separate
jury
trial
penalty
phase
proceeding
facts
bear
sentencing
either
discovered
discoverable
prior
trial
instance
legislature
might
desire
defendants
act
obstructive
manner
trial
proceedings
receive
greater
sentence
defendants
see
sentencing
commission
guidelines
manual
hereinafter
ussg
increase
offense
level
obstruction
justice
cases
violation
arises
late
state
provide
notice
defendant
argue
facts
jury
state
wanting
make
facts
relevant
sentencing
must
either
vest
sufficient
discretion
judge
account
bring
separate
criminal
prosecution
obstruction
justice
perjury
latter
option
available
extent
defendant
obstructive
behavior
severe
constitute
separate
offense
unless
legislature
willing
undertake
unlikely
expense
criminalizing
relatively
minor
obstructive
behavior
likewise
facts
historically
relevant
sentencing
always
known
prior
trial
instance
trial
sentencing
proceedings
drug
distribution
defendant
might
reveal
sold
primarily
children
majority
approach
state
wishing
revelation
result
higher
sentence
within
statutory
range
either
must
vest
judges
sufficient
discretion
account
trust
exercise
discretion
bring
separate
criminal
prosecution
indeed
latter
choice
might
available
separate
prosecution
aggravated
offense
likely
barred
altogether
double
jeopardy
clause
blockburger
prosecute
separate
offense
unless
two
offenses
least
one
element
majority
may
correct
federal
government
willing
bear
costs
ante
simple
economics
dictate
bear
extent
inevitable
increase
judicial
discretion
attendant
iii
washington
sentencing
reform
act
alter
statutory
maximum
sentence
petitioner
exposed
see
rev
code
ann
second
degree
kidnaping
class
felony
since
see
also
state
pawling
app
citing
second
degree
kidnapping
provision
existed
petitioner
informed
charging
document
plea
agreement
plea
hearing
faced
potential
statutory
maximum
years
prison
app
discussed
guidelines
served
due
process
providing
notice
petitioner
consequences
acts
vindicated
jury
trial
right
informing
stakes
risking
trial
served
equal
protection
ensuring
petitioner
invidious
characteristics
race
impact
sentence
given
observations
difficult
discern
principle
besides
doctrinaire
formalism
actually
motivates
today
decision
majority
chides
apprendi
dissenters
preferring
nuanced
interpretation
due
process
clause
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
guarantee
generally
defer
legislative
labels
acknowledging
existence
constitutional
constraints
majority
calls
law
must
go
far
approach
ante
emphasis
deleted
indeed
choice
adopting
balanced
approach
takes
consideration
values
underlying
bill
rights
well
history
particular
sentencing
reform
law
adopting
rigid
rule
destroys
everything
path
choose
former
see
apprendi
dissenting
believe
maximum
penalty
rule
required
constitution
evaluate
new
jersey
statute
analyzing
factors
examined
past
cases
citation
omitted
even
one
accept
formalism
principle
worth
vindicating
sake
explain
apprendi
today
result
rule
deferring
legislative
labels
less
formal
pedigree
consistent
decisions
leading
apprendi
see
fact
prior
conviction
element
aggravated
recidivist
offense
watts
per
curiam
acquittal
offense
bar
consideration
underlying
conduct
purposes
guidelines
enhancement
witte
double
jeopardy
bar
consideration
uncharged
conduct
imposition
guidelines
enhancement
walton
arizona
aggravating
factors
need
found
jury
capital
case
mistretta
federal
sentencing
guidelines
violate
separation
powers
mcmillan
pennsylvania
facts
increasing
mandatory
minimum
sentence
necessarily
elements
vest
primary
authority
defining
crimes
political
branches
belongs
apprendi
supra
dissenting
also
easier
administer
majority
rule
inasmuch
courts
forced
look
behind
statutes
regulations
determine
whether
particular
fact
increase
penalty
defendant
exposed
majority
correct
rigid
adherence
approach
conceivably
produce
absurd
results
ante
today
decision
demonstrates
rigid
adherence
majority
approach
continue
produce
results
disserve
principles
majority
purports
vindicate
rule
deference
legislature
retains
political
check
prevent
lawmakers
shifting
prosecution
crimes
penalty
phase
proceedings
lesser
included
offenses
majority
hypothesized
prosecution
murder
guise
traffic
offense
sentencing
proceeding
ante
similar
check
however
application
majority
fact
increases
upper
bound
judicial
courts
majority
claims
mantle
history
original
intent
explained
elsewhere
handful
state
decisions
century
criminal
procedure
treatise
little
persuasive
value
evidence
framers
federal
constitution
intended
late
century
see
apprendi
dissenting
broad
judicial
sentencing
discretion
foreign
framers
citing
archbold
pleading
evidence
criminal
cases
ed
never
faced
constitutional
choice
submitting
every
fact
increases
sentence
jury
vesting
sentencing
judge
broad
ary
authority
account
differences
offenses
offenders
iv
consequences
today
decision
far
reaching
disturbing
washington
sentencing
system
means
unique
numerous
enacted
guidelines
systems
federal
government
see
alaska
stat
ark
code
ann
supp
stat
stat
ann
et
seq
comp
laws
ann
west
supp
stat
stat
lexis
admin
rule
code
et
seq
reproduced
following
cons
stat
ann
purden
supp
et
seq
today
decision
casts
constitutional
doubt
threatens
untold
number
criminal
judgments
every
sentence
imposed
guidelines
cases
currently
pending
direct
appeal
jeopardy
despite
fact
hold
schriro
summerlin
post
ring
fortiori
apprendi
apply
retroactively
habeas
review
criminal
sentences
imposed
federal
state
guidelines
since
apprendi
decided
arguably
remain
open
collateral
attack
see
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
case
announces
new
rule
result
dictated
precedent
existing
time
defendant
conviction
became
final
practical
consequences
trial
courts
starting
today
equally
unsettling
courts
mete
guidelines
sentences
courts
apply
guidelines
mitigating
factors
aggravating
factors
jettison
guidelines
altogether
ignores
havoc
wreak
trial
courts
across
country
answer
say
today
opinion
impacts
washington
scheme
others
example
federal
sentencing
guidelines
see
ante
federal
guidelines
us
express
opinion
cf
apprendi
supra
claiming
overrule
walton
supra
soon
thereafter
overruled
ring
apprendi
supra
reserving
question
federal
sentencing
guidelines
fact
federal
sentencing
guidelines
promulgated
administrative
agency
nominally
located
judicial
branch
irrelevant
majority
reasoning
guidelines
force
law
see
stinson
congress
unfettered
control
reject
accept
particular
guideline
mistretta
structure
federal
guidelines
likewise
government
suggests
provide
grounds
distinction
brief
amicus
curiae
washington
scheme
almost
identical
upward
departure
regime
established
implemented
ussg
anything
structural
differences
exist
make
federal
guidelines
vulnerable
attack
provision
struck
provides
increase
upper
bound
presumptive
sentencing
range
sentencing
finds
considering
purpose
act
substantial
compelling
reasons
justifying
exceptional
sentence
rev
code
ann
act
elsewhere
provides
nonexhaustive
list
aggravating
factors
satisfy
definition
flatly
rejects
respondent
argument
soft
constraints
still
allow
washington
judges
exercise
substantial
amount
discretion
survive
apprendi
ante
suggests
hard
constraints
found
throughout
chapters
federal
sentencing
guidelines
require
increase
sentencing
range
upon
specified
factual
findings
meet
fate
see
ussg
increases
offense
level
firearms
offenses
based
number
firearms
involved
whether
possession
connection
another
offense
whether
firearm
stolen
increase
offense
level
financial
crimes
based
amount
money
involved
number
victims
possession
weapon
general
increase
offense
level
obstruction
justice
indeed
extraordinary
sentence
provision
struck
today
inoffensive
holding
apprendi
regime
guided
discretion
possibly
list
facts
justify
increase
range
nonexhaustive
state
real
facts
doctrine
precludes
reliance
sentencing
courts
upon
facts
constitute
elements
different
aggravated
offense
see
rev
code
ann
codifying
real
facts
doctrine
washington
scheme
comport
constitution
hard
imagine
guidelines
scheme
feared
come
pass
years
sentencing
reform
lost
tens
thousands
criminal
judgments
jeopardy
apprendi
dissenting
ring
dissenting
respectfully
dissent
ralph
howard
blakely
petitioner
washington
writ
certiorari
appeals
washington
division
june
justice
kennedy
justice
breyer
joins
dissenting
majority
opinion
considerable
damage
laws
administration
criminal
justice
system
reasons
well
stated
justice
dissent
plus
one
respectful
submission
disregards
fundamental
principle
constitutional
system
different
branches
government
converse
matters
vital
common
interest
mistretta
mistretta
explained
constitution
establishes
system
government
presupposes
also
quoting
youngstown
sheet
tube
sawyer
jackson
concurring
constant
constructive
discourse
courts
legislatures
integral
admirable
part
constitutional
design
judicial
determinations
often
yield
intelligible
patterns
refined
legislatures
codified
statutes
rules
general
standards
legislative
enactments
followed
incremental
judicial
interpretation
legislatures
may
respond
cycle
repeats
recurring
dialogue
essential
source
elaboration
evolution
law
basic
constitutional
theory
action
sentencing
guidelines
prime
example
collaborative
process
dissatisfied
wide
disparity
sentencing
participants
criminal
justice
system
including
judges
pressed
legislative
reforms
response
legislators
drew
participants
shared
experiences
enacted
measures
correct
problems
justice
explains
sometimes
rise
level
constitutional
injury
mistretta
recognized
interchange
among
different
actors
constitutional
scheme
consistent
constitution
structural
protections
sure
case
concerns
work
state
legislature
congress
anything
however
distinction
counsels
even
greater
judicial
caution
unlike
mistretta
case
implicates
collective
wisdom
legislators
side
continuing
dialogue
fair
sentencing
also
interest
serve
laboratories
innovation
experiment
see
new
state
ice
liebmann
brandeis
dissenting
apparent
sense
irony
effect
today
decision
destruction
sentencing
scheme
devised
democratically
elected
legislators
majority
shuts
alternative
nonjudicial
sources
ideas
experience
faintly
disguised
distrust
judges
purported
usurpation
jury
function
criminal
trials
tells
trial
judges
spent
years
studying
problem
also
legislators
devoted
valuable
time
resources
calling
upon
accumulated
wisdom
experience
judicial
branch
matter
uniquely
within
ken
judges
mistretta
supra
efforts
judgments
naught
numerous
enacted
sentencing
guidelines
similar
one
washington
state
commanded
scrap
everything
start
constitution
required
result
majority
decision
unfortunate
least
understandable
defensible
justice
dissent
demonstrates
however
simply
case
reason
constitution
prohibit
dynamic
fruitful
dialogue
judicial
legislative
branches
government
marked
sentencing
reform
state
federal
levels
years
dissent
ralph
howard
blakely
petitioner
washington
writ
certiorari
appeals
washington
division
june
justice
breyer
justice
joins
dissenting
makes
clear
means
said
apprendi
new
jersey
view
sixth
amendment
says
fact
increases
penalty
crime
beyond
prescribed
statutory
maximum
must
submitted
jury
ante
quoting
apprendi
supra
rescribed
statutory
means
penalty
relevant
statute
authorizes
solely
basis
facts
reflected
jury
verdict
ante
emphasis
deleted
thus
jury
must
find
facts
make
crime
offender
charged
also
facts
way
offender
carried
crime
difficult
understand
impulse
produced
holding
imagine
classic
example
statute
mandatory
sentencing
guideline
provides
sentence
ordinary
bank
robbery
sentence
bank
robbery
committed
gun
one
might
ask
matter
jury
trial
purposes
whether
statute
guideline
labels
gun
presence
sentencing
fact
way
offender
carried
lesser
crime
ordinary
bank
robbery
factual
element
greater
crime
bank
robbery
gun
sixth
amendment
requires
jury
finding
gun
latter
circumstance
also
require
jury
find
fact
former
circumstance
two
sets
circumstances
functionally
identical
instances
identical
punishment
follows
identical
factual
findings
related
bank
taking
force
threat
force
gun
difference
two
circumstances
concerns
legislative
sentencing
commission
decision
label
sentencing
fact
element
greater
crime
affix
one
facts
namely
presence
gun
lead
greater
sentence
given
identity
circumstances
apart
label
jury
traditional
factfinding
role
law
insistence
upon
treating
like
cases
alike
legislature
labeling
choice
make
important
sixth
amendment
difference
apprendi
concludes
make
difference
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
guarantee
applies
similarly
agree
majority
analysis
conclusion
say
agree
classically
speaking
difference
traditional
sentencing
factor
element
greater
offense
often
comes
legislative
choice
label
affix
jump
conclusion
sixth
amendment
always
requires
identical
treatment
two
scenarios
jump
fraught
consequences
threaten
fairness
traditional
criminal
justice
system
distorts
historical
sentencing
criminal
trial
practices
upsets
settled
law
legislatures
relied
designing
punishment
systems
justices
dissented
apprendi
written
many
matters
opinions
see
kennedy
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
jones
kennedy
dissenting
monge
california
mcmillan
pennsylvania
rehnquist
risk
repetition
shall
set
forth
several
important
considerations
lead
conclude
must
dissent
majority
ignores
adverse
consequences
inherent
conclusion
result
majority
rule
sentencing
must
take
one
three
forms
risks
either
impracticality
unfairness
harm
jury
trial
right
majority
purports
strengthen
circumstance
shows
majority
sixth
amendment
interpretation
right
first
option
legislators
create
simple
pure
nearly
pure
charge
offense
determinate
sentencing
system
see
breyer
federal
sentencing
guidelines
key
compromises
upon
rest
hofstra
rev
system
indictment
charge
facts
taken
together
constitute
crime
robbery
robbery
carry
single
sentence
say
five
years
imprisonment
every
person
convicted
robbery
receive
sentence
centuries
ago
everyone
convicted
almost
serious
crime
sentenced
death
see
lillquist
puzzling
return
jury
sentencing
misgivings
apprendi
rev
system
assures
uniformity
intolerable
costs
first
simple
determinate
sentencing
systems
impose
identical
punishments
people
committed
crimes
different
ways
dramatically
different
conduct
ends
punished
way
injustice
taken
place
simple
determinate
sentencing
virtue
treating
like
cases
alike
simultaneously
fails
treat
different
cases
differently
commentators
leveled
charge
sentencing
guideline
systems
see
schulhofer
assessing
federal
sentencing
process
problem
uniformity
disparity
crim
rev
arguing
important
problem
federal
guidelines
system
much
disparity
rather
excessive
uniformity
arguing
adjustments
including
elimination
mandatory
minimums
make
guidelines
system
responsive
relevant
differences
charge
doubly
applicable
simple
pure
charge
systems
permit
departures
prescribed
sentences
even
extraordinary
cases
second
world
statutorily
fixed
mandatory
sentences
many
crimes
determinate
sentencing
gives
tremendous
power
prosecutors
manipulate
sentences
choice
charges
prosecutors
simply
charge
threaten
charge
defendants
crimes
bearing
higher
mandatory
sentences
defendants
knowing
chance
argue
lower
sentence
front
judge
may
plead
charges
might
otherwise
contest
considering
criminal
cases
go
trial
resolution
plea
bargaining
norm
rule
apprendi
extent
results
return
determinate
sentencing
threatens
serious
unfairness
see
bibas
judicial
sentence
enhancements
world
guilty
pleas
yale
explaining
rule
apprendi
hurts
defendants
depriving
sentencing
hearings
hearings
likely
forcing
defendants
surrender
sentencing
issues
like
drug
quantity
agree
plea
transferring
power
prosecutors
second
option
legislators
return
system
indeterminate
sentencing
california
recent
sentencing
reform
movement
see
payne
tennessee
increasing
importance
probation
opposed
imprisonment
part
penological
process
california
developed
sentence
time
incarceration
left
almost
entirely
penological
authorities
rather
courts
thompson
navigating
hidden
obstacles
reentry
boston
college
rev
late
california
switched
indeterminate
criminal
sentencing
scheme
determinate
sentencing
omitted
indeterminate
systems
length
sentence
entirely
almost
entirely
within
discretion
judge
parole
board
typically
broad
power
decide
release
prisoner
systems
vogue
criticized
rightly
producing
unfair
disparities
including
disparities
punishment
similarly
situated
defendants
see
ante
dissenting
citing
sources
length
time
person
spent
prison
appeared
depend
judge
ate
breakfast
day
sentencing
judge
got
factors
made
difference
length
sentence
see
breyer
supra
citing
congressional
expert
studies
indicating
sentencing
guidelines
promulgated
punishments
identical
crimes
second
circuit
ranged
years
imprisonment
sentences
varied
depending
upon
region
gender
defendant
race
defendant
system
judge
vary
sentence
greatly
based
upon
findings
defendant
committed
crime
findings
might
made
preponderance
evidence
much
less
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
mcmillan
returning
system
diminish
majority
claims
trying
uphold
ante
quoting
bishop
criminal
procedure
ed
also
little
ensur
control
majority
calls
peopl
jury
judiciary
ante
since
peopl
decide
defendant
guilt
finding
effect
duration
sentence
judge
authority
sentence
formally
derive
jury
verdict
jury
exercise
little
control
sentence
ante
difficult
see
outcome
protects
structural
safeguards
majority
claims
defending
third
option
seems
believe
legislators
fact
take
option
retaining
structured
schemes
attempt
punish
similar
conduct
similarly
different
conduct
differently
modifying
conform
apprendi
dictates
judges
able
depart
downward
presumptive
sentences
upon
finding
mitigating
factors
present
able
depart
upward
unless
prosecutor
charged
aggravating
fact
jury
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
majority
argues
based
single
example
kansas
legislatures
enact
amendments
along
lines
face
oncoming
apprendi
train
see
ante
citing
state
gould
act
may
ch
sess
laws
pp
codified
stat
ann
cum
supp
brief
kansas
appellate
defender
office
amicus
curiae
therefore
worth
exploring
option
work
practice
well
assumptions
depends
option
implemented
one
two
ways
first
way
legislatures
subdivide
crime
list
complex
crimes
defined
include
commonly
found
sentencing
factors
drug
quantity
type
victim
presence
violence
degree
injury
use
gun
legislature
example
might
enact
robbery
statute
modeled
robbery
sentencing
guidelines
increases
punishment
depending
upon
nature
institution
robbed
presence
brandishing
use
firearm
making
death
threat
presence
ordinary
serious
permanent
life
threatening
bodily
injury
abduction
physical
restraint
taking
firearm
taking
drugs
value
property
loss
etc
cf
sentencing
commission
guidelines
manual
hereinafter
ussg
possibility
course
merely
highly
calibrated
form
pure
charge
system
discussed
part
supra
suffers
defects
prosecutor
control
precise
charge
controls
punishment
thereby
marching
sentencing
system
directly
away
toward
one
important
guideline
goal
rough
uniformity
punishment
engage
roughly
real
criminal
conduct
artificial
consequently
unfair
nature
resulting
sentence
aggravated
fact
prosecutors
must
charge
relevant
facts
way
crime
committed
presentence
investigation
examines
criminal
conduct
perhaps
trial
many
facts
relevant
punishment
known
complex
charge
offense
system
also
prejudices
defendants
seek
trial
put
untenable
position
contesting
material
aggravating
facts
guilt
phases
trials
consider
defendant
charged
mere
possession
cocaine
specific
offense
possession
grams
cocaine
consider
defendant
charged
murder
new
crime
murder
using
machete
consider
defendant
prosecution
wants
claim
supervisor
rather
ordinary
gang
member
constitution
guarantees
due
process
put
defendants
matter
course
position
arguing
sell
drugs
sell
grams
kill
use
machete
engage
gang
activity
certainly
supervisor
single
jury
see
apprendi
breyer
dissenting
monge
system
tolerate
kind
problem
point
consider
defendant
wants
argue
innocence
alternative
murder
rereading
many
distinctions
made
typical
robbery
guideline
see
supra
suggests
effort
incorporate
real
set
guidelines
complex
statute
reach
well
beyond
point
majority
announces
really
problem
may
continue
offer
judicial
factfinding
matter
course
defendants
plead
guilty
defendants
may
stipulat
relevant
facts
consen
judicial
factfinding
ante
problem
course
concerns
defendants
want
plead
guilty
elements
recently
commonly
thought
sentencing
factors
defendants
fairness
problem
arises
may
well
decide
permit
defendants
carve
subsets
facts
new
robbery
crime
seeking
judicial
determination
facts
jury
determination
others
instead
may
simply
require
defendants
plead
guilty
elements
proceed
likely
prejudicial
trial
elements
majority
deny
may
make
choice
simply
fails
understand
state
want
exercise
ante
answer
shall
explain
moment
alternative
may
prove
expensive
unwieldy
provide
offer
defendants
option
judicial
factfinding
facts
sentencing
facts
say
fairness
concerns
also
offer
defendant
second
sentencing
jury
kansas
done
therefore
turn
alternative
second
way
make
sentencing
guidelines
require
least
two
juries
defendant
whenever
aggravating
facts
present
one
jury
determine
guilt
crime
charged
additional
jury
try
disputed
facts
found
aggravate
sentence
experience
bifurcated
trials
capital
punishment
context
suggests
requiring
sentences
costly
money
judicial
time
resources
cf
kozinski
gallagher
death
ultimate
sentence
case
res
rev
estimating
costs
capital
case
around
million
noncapital
case
tabak
empirical
studies
affect
positively
politics
death
penalty
cornell
rev
attributing
greater
cost
death
penalty
cases
part
bifurcated
proceedings
context
noncapital
crimes
potential
need
second
indictment
alleging
aggravating
facts
likely
need
formal
evidentiary
rules
prevent
prejudice
increased
difficulty
obtaining
relevant
sentencing
information
mean
greater
complexity
added
cost
delay
see
part
infra
indeed
cost
delay
lead
legislatures
revert
complex
charge
offense
system
described
part
supra
majority
refers
amicus
curiae
brief
filed
kansas
appellate
defender
office
suggests
system
proved
workable
kansas
ante
may
likelihood
workability
reflects
uncomfortable
fact
fact
majority
hints
ante
whose
constitutional
implications
seem
grasp
uncomfortable
fact
make
system
seem
workable
even
desirable
minds
including
defense
attorneys
called
plea
bargaining
see
bibas
yale
reporting
fewer
adjudicated
state
felony
defendants
jury
trials
bench
trials
plead
guilty
see
also
ante
making
clear
plea
bargaining
applies
announce
constitution
requires
least
two
jury
trials
criminal
defendant
one
guilt
another
sentencing
knows
full
well
defendants
go
trial
even
much
less
insist
two
trials
consequences
holding
defendants
go
trial
truthful
answer
know
defendants
may
receive
bargaining
advantages
increased
cost
double
jury
trial
guarantee
makes
prosecutors
willing
cede
certain
sentencing
issues
defense
defendants
may
hurt
approach
makes
reluctant
risk
trial
perhaps
want
argue
know
cocaine
bag
small
amount
regardless
unaware
confederate
gun
etc
see
bibas
yale
many
defendants
going
trial
desirable
option
left
without
real
hearings
trial
right
little
good
defendants
go
trial
least
greater
expense
attached
trials
greater
complexity
taken
together
context
overworked
criminal
justice
system
likely
mean
things
equal
fewer
trials
greater
reliance
upon
plea
bargaining
system
punishment
set
judges
juries
advocates
acting
bargaining
constraints
time
greater
power
prosecutor
control
punishment
charge
likely
weaken
relation
real
conduct
real
punishment
well
see
schulhofer
crim
estimating
evasion
proper
sentence
federal
guidelines
may
occur
guilty
plea
cases
even
holding
embed
practices
fear
success
depends
upon
existence
present
practice
understand
sixth
amendment
require
sentencing
system
work
practice
handful
defendants
exercise
right
jury
trial
majority
response
state
bargaining
elements
probably
favors
defendant
ante
adding
many
criminal
defense
lawyers
favor
position
ante
basic
problem
one
fairness
defendants
matter
fairness
prosecutors
rather
concerns
greater
fairness
sentencing
system
uniform
correspondence
real
criminal
conduct
real
punishment
helps
create
minimum
system
preventing
judge
taking
account
aggravating
fact
without
prosecutor
acquiescence
undercut
nullify
legislative
efforts
ensure
guidelines
punishments
reflect
convicted
offender
real
criminal
conduct
rather
portion
offender
conduct
prosecutor
decides
charge
prove
efforts
tie
real
punishment
real
conduct
new
embodied
sentencing
practices
practices
judge
looking
presentence
report
seek
tailor
sentence
significant
part
fit
criminal
conduct
offender
actually
engaged
century
questions
punishment
guilt
innocence
reflected
determinations
made
juries
also
judges
probation
officers
executive
parole
boards
determinations
rested
upon
adversarial
processes
holding
undermines
efforts
reform
processes
means
legislatures
permit
judges
base
sentencing
upon
real
conduct
seek
guidelines
make
results
uniform
ways
system
work
radical
change
criminal
law
surprising
never
previously
suggested
constitution
outside
unique
context
death
penalty
might
require
bifurcated
sentencing
impediment
holding
poses
legislative
efforts
achieve
greater
systematic
fairness
casts
doubt
constitutional
validity
fourth
option
perhaps
congress
state
legislatures
might
example
rewrite
criminal
codes
attaching
astronomically
high
sentences
crime
followed
long
lists
mitigating
facts
part
consist
absence
aggravating
facts
apprendi
dissenting
explaining
legislatures
evade
majority
rule
making
yet
another
labeling
choice
political
impediments
legislative
action
make
rewrites
difficult
achieve
difficult
see
sixth
amendment
require
legislatures
undertake
may
also
prove
possible
find
combinations
variations
upon
first
three
options
unaware
variation
involve
shift
power
prosecutor
weakening
connection
real
conduct
real
punishment
inherent
charge
offense
system
lack
uniformity
inherent
system
pure
judicial
discretion
complexity
expense
increased
reliance
plea
bargains
involved
system
simple
fact
design
fair
sentencing
system
must
involve
efforts
make
practical
compromises
among
competing
goals
majority
reading
sixth
amendment
makes
effort
find
compromises
already
difficult
virtually
impossible
ii
majority
rests
conclusion
significant
part
upon
claimed
historical
therefore
constitutional
imperative
according
majority
rule
applies
case
rooted
longstanding
tenets
criminal
jurisprudence
ante
every
accusation
defendant
must
proved
jury
accusation
lacks
particular
fact
law
makes
essential
punishment
accusation
within
requirements
common
law
accusation
reason
ibid
quoting
bishop
criminal
procedure
historical
sources
upon
majority
relies
however
compel
result
reaches
see
ante
dissenting
apprendi
dissenting
quotation
bishop
majority
attributes
great
weight
stands
nothing
unremarkable
proposition
legislature
passes
statute
setting
forth
heavier
penalties
available
committing
offense
specifying
facts
triggered
statutory
penalty
defendant
receive
greater
statutory
punishment
indictment
expressly
charged
prosecutor
proved
facts
made
statutory
offense
opposed
simply
facts
made
offense
dissenting
characterizing
similar
statement
law
archbold
pleading
evidence
criminal
cases
ed
obvious
one
considers
problem
bishop
addressing
provides
example
statutes
whereby
crime
committed
particular
intent
particular
weapon
like
subjected
particular
corresponding
punishment
heavier
simple
offense
though
course
concerns
limited
example
ante
bishop
supra
discussing
example
common
assault
statutes
assaults
committed
intent
rob
indictments
historically
charge
statutorily
labeled
elements
offense
proposition
agree
see
apprendi
supra
dissenting
see
also
archbold
pleading
evidence
criminal
cases
ed
fact
circumstance
necessary
ingredient
offence
must
set
forth
indictment
may
doubt
judgment
given
defendant
convicted
starkie
criminal
pleading
ed
indictment
must
state
criminal
nature
degree
offence
conclusions
law
facts
also
particular
facts
circumstances
render
defendant
guilty
offence
neither
bishop
historical
treatise
writer
however
disputes
proposition
judges
historically
discretion
vary
sentence
within
range
provided
statute
based
facts
proved
trial
see
bishop
supra
ithin
limits
discretion
punishment
law
may
allowed
judge
pronounces
sentence
may
suffer
discretion
influenced
matter
shown
aggravation
mitigation
covered
allegations
indictment
stith
cabranes
fear
judging
sentencing
guidelines
federal
courts
modern
history
sentencing
likewise
indicates
judges
broad
discretion
set
sentences
within
statutory
range
based
uncharged
conduct
usually
judge
based
sentencing
decision
facts
gleaned
presentence
report
defendant
dispute
sentencing
hearing
federal
system
example
federal
rule
criminal
procedure
provided
probation
officers
employees
judicial
branch
prepared
presentence
report
judge
copy
generally
given
prosecution
defense
sentencing
hearing
see
stith
cabranes
supra
note
see
also
ante
dissenting
describing
state
washington
former
indeterminate
sentencing
law
case
statute
provides
kidnaping
may
punished
years
imprisonment
rev
code
ann
modern
structured
sentencing
schemes
like
washington
change
statutorily
fixed
maximum
penalty
purport
establish
new
elements
crime
instead
undertake
structure
previously
unfettered
discretion
sentencing
judge
channeling
limiting
discretion
even
within
statutory
range
thus
contrary
majority
arguments
ante
kidnapers
state
washington
know
risk
years
imprisonment
also
benefit
additional
information
long
within
maximum
sentences
likely
based
kidnaping
committed
historical
treatises
speak
practice
done
century
cf
jones
scholarship
aware
show
question
exactly
like
one
ever
raised
resolved
period
framing
makes
sense
one
considers
prior
century
prescribed
penalty
felonies
often
death
judge
limited
sometimes
power
vary
see
lillquist
century
saw
movement
rehabilitative
mode
punishment
prison
terms
became
norm
shifting
power
judge
impose
longer
shorter
term
within
statutory
maximum
see
ibid
ability
legislatures
guide
judge
discretion
designating
presumptive
ranges
allowing
judge
impose
less
severe
penalty
unusual
cases
therefore
never
considered
argue
otherwise
majority
must
ignore
significant
differences
modern
structured
sentencing
schemes
history
relies
strike
majority
insists
historical
sources
particularly
bishop
limited
context
written
ante
never
explained
must
transplant
discussions
different
context
sentencing
schemes
designed
structure
judges
discretion
within
statutory
sentencing
range
given
history
silence
question
laws
structure
judge
discretion
within
range
provided
legislatively
labeled
maximum
term
surprising
modern
cases
made
clear
legislatures
within
broad
limits
distinguish
sentencing
facts
elements
crimes
see
mcmillan
choice
label
legislatures
indicate
whether
judge
jury
must
make
relevant
factual
determination
history
preclude
legislatures
making
decision
argued
part
supra
allowing
legislatures
structure
sentencing
way
dual
effect
enhancing
giving
meaning
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
right
core
crimes
affording
additional
due
process
defendants
form
sentencing
hearings
judges
hearings
majority
rule
eliminate
many
risk
unfairness
involved
permitting
congress
make
labeling
decision
course
recognized
tail
sentencing
fact
might
wa
dog
substantive
offense
mcmillan
supra
congress
might
permit
judge
sentence
individual
murder
though
convicted
making
illegal
lane
change
see
ante
majority
opinion
kind
problem
due
process
clause
well
suited
cure
mcmillan
foresaw
possibility
judges
use
judgment
dealing
problem
judges
part
supra
makes
clear
alternatives
worse
practically
although
majority
refuses
admit
constitutionally
well
historic
practice
compel
result
majority
reaches
constitutional
concerns
counsel
opposite
iii
majority
also
overlooks
important
institutional
considerations
congress
relied
upon
believed
constitutional
power
decide
within
broad
limits
whether
make
particular
fact
sentencing
factor
element
greater
crime
relied
upon
mcmillan
guaranteeing
constitutional
validity
proposition
created
sentencing
reform
effort
change
criminal
justice
system
reflects
systematically
simply
upon
guilt
innocence
also
upon
done
offender
efforts
spanned
generation
led
state
sentencing
guidelines
federal
sentencing
guideline
system
ante
dissenting
describing
sentencing
reform
state
washington
systems
imperfect
yield
far
perfect
results
believe
constitution
forbids
state
legislatures
congress
adopt
systems
try
improve
time
believe
constitution
hamstrings
legislatures
way
justice
discussed
iv
let
us
return
question
posed
outset
sixth
amendment
permit
jury
trial
right
respect
particular
fact
depend
upon
legislative
labeling
decision
namely
legislative
decision
label
fact
sentencing
fact
instead
element
crime
answer
fairness
effectiveness
sentencing
system
related
fairness
effectiveness
criminal
justice
system
depends
upon
legislature
possessing
constitutional
authority
within
due
process
limits
make
labeling
decision
restrict
radically
legislature
power
respect
majority
interprets
sixth
amendment
prevents
legislature
seeking
sentencing
systems
consistent
indeed
may
help
advance
constitution
greater
fairness
goals
say
simply
express
concerns
fairness
defendants
also
express
concerns
serious
practical
impractical
changes
decision
seems
likely
impose
upon
criminal
process
tendency
decision
embed
plea
bargaining
processes
lack
transparency
often
mean
nonuniform
sometimes
arbitrary
sentencing
practices
obstacles
decision
poses
legislative
efforts
bring
greater
uniformity
real
criminal
conduct
real
punishment
ultimately
limitations
imposes
upon
legislatures
ability
make
democratic
legislative
decisions
whatever
faults
guidelines
systems
many
likely
find
cure
legislation
emerging
experience
discussion
among
elements
criminal
justice
community
virtually
unchangeable
constitutional
decision
taken
together
three
sets
considerations
concerning
consequences
concerning
history
ing
institutional
reliance
leave
apprendi
convinced
wrong
thought
might
limited
apprendi
underlying
principle
undo
sentencing
reform
efforts
today
case
dispels
illusion
minimum
case
sets
aside
numerous
state
efforts
direction
perhaps
distinguish
federal
sentencing
guidelines
uncertain
result
today
decision
federal
prosecutors
like
state
prosecutors
must
decide
next
handle
tomorrow
case
consider
matters
federal
prosecutors
must
know
guess
prosecute
next
case
today
decision
apply
full
force
federal
sentencing
guidelines
must
initial
indictment
contain
sentencing
factors
charged
elements
crime
evidentiary
rules
prosecution
continue
use
say
presentence
reports
conclusions
reflecting
layers
hearsay
cf
crawford
washington
slip
clarifying
sixth
amendment
requirement
confrontation
respect
testimonial
hearsay
numerous
cases
holding
sentencing
judge
may
consider
virtually
reliable
information
still
good
law
juries
judges
required
determine
matter
see
watts
per
curiam
evidence
conduct
defendant
acquitted
may
considered
sentencing
cf
witte
evidence
uncharged
criminal
conduct
used
determining
sentence
juries
deal
highly
complex
sentencing
guidelines
obviously
written
application
experienced
trial
judge
see
ussg
requiring
greater
sentence
defendant
leader
criminal
activity
involved
four
participants
otherwise
extensive
emphasis
added
highly
complex
multiple
count
rules
relevant
conduct
rules
ordinarily
simply
waits
cases
arise
answer
questions
case
affects
tens
thousands
criminal
prosecutions
including
federal
prosecutions
federal
prosecutors
proceed
prosecutions
subject
risk
defendants
cases
sentenced
perhaps
tried
anew
given
consequence
need
certainty
proceed
piecemeal
rather
call
argument
ramifications
concerns
raised
view
reasons
given
dissent
footnotes
parts
washington
criminal
code
recodified
amended
cite
throughout
provisions
effect
time
sentencing
petitioner
agreed
additional
charge
assault
involving
domestic
violence
rev
code
ann
sentence
count
ran
concurrently
relevant
stipulation
subjected
petitioner
measures
order
see
increase
standard
range
sentence
judge
found
aggravating
factors
appeals
questioned
validity
state
law
independent
sufficiency
support
extent
departure
see
app
affirmed
sentence
solely
finding
domestic
violence
deliberate
cruelty
ibid
therefore
focus
factor
justice
breyer
cites
justice
apprendi
dissent
point
bishop
quotation
means
indictments
must
charge
facts
trigger
statutory
aggravation
offense
post
dissenting
opinion
course
notes
justice
referring
entirely
different
quotation
archbold
treatise
see
citing
archbold
pleading
evidence
criminal
cases
ed
justice
breyer
claims
two
similar
post
similar
chalk
cheese
bishop
addressing
problem
statutes
aggravate
offenses
ibid
rather
entire
chapter
treatise
devoted
point
every
fact
legally
essential
punishment
must
charged
indictment
proved
jury
bishop
criminal
procedure
ch
pp
ed
one
example
principle
appearing
several
pages
language
quote
text
notes
statute
aggravating
assault
nowhere
slightest
indication
general
principle
limited
example
even
justice
breyer
academic
supporters
make
claim
see
bibas
judicial
sentence
enhancements
world
guilty
pleas
yale
conceding
bishop
treatise
supports
apprendi
criticizing
theorizing
justice
criticism
quantity
historical
support
apprendi
rule
post
dissenting
opinion
bears
repeating
issue
us
whether
constitution
limits
authority
reclassify
elements
sentencing
factors
agree
line
constitution
draws
criticism
quantity
evidence
favoring
alternative
force
accompanied
evidence
favoring
justice
even
provide
coherent
alternative
meaning
guarantee
unless
one
considers
whatever
legislature
chooses
leave
jury
long
go
far
coherent
see
infra
state
contend
stipulation
alone
supports
departure
statute
lists
domestic
violence
grounds
departure
combined
aggravating
factor
suggests
see
iii
matter
judge
must
finding
aggravating
facts
make
judgment
present
compelling
ground
departure
make
judgment
without
finding
facts
support
beyond
bare
elements
offense
whether
judicially
determined
facts
require
sentence
enhancement
merely
allow
verdict
alone
authorize
sentence
amicus
curiae
urges
us
affirm
notes
differences
washington
sentencing
regime
federal
sentencing
guidelines
questions
whether
differences
constitutionally
significant
see
brief
amicus
curiae
federal
guidelines
us
express
opinion
justice
believes
political
check
prevent
lawmakers
manipulating
offense
elements
fashion
post
many
immediate
practical
advantages
judicial
factfinding
see
post
suggest
political
forces
anything
pull
opposite
direction
case
framers
decision
entrench
right
constitution
shows
trust
government
make
political
decisions
area
another
example
conversion
separate
crime
sentence
enhancement
justice
evidently
consider
going
far
enhancement
see
post
perjury
trial
grounds
judicial
sentence
enhancement
underlying
offense
rather
entirely
separate
offense
found
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
centuries
see
blackstone
commentaries
laws
england
unclear
justice
breyer
responds
required
give
defendants
option
waiving
jury
trial
elements
others
post
true
enough
asserts
coercing
want
determinate
sentencing
norm
wo
let
want
prevent
defendant
choosing
regime
justice
breyer
claims
alternative
may
prove
expensive
unwieldy
provide
post
obvious
reason
forcing
defendants
choose
contesting
elements
hypothetical
robbery
crime
contesting
none
less
expensive
also
giving
third
option
pleading
guilty
elements
submitting
rest
judicial
factfinding
justice
breyer
argument
rests
entirely
speculative
prediction
number
defendants
likely
choose
first
rather
second
option
denied
third
sure
justice
breyer
dissenters
forbid
increases
sentence
violate
constitutional
principle
tail
shall
wag
dog
source
principle
entirely
unclear
precise
effect
precise
effect
presumably
require
ratio
basic
criminal
sentence
greater
ratio
caudal
vertebrae
body
breed
canine
longest
tail
perhaps
greater
average
ratio
breeds
perhaps
median
regrettably
apprendi
prevented
full
development
line
jurisprudence
footnotes
paucity
empirical
evidence
regarding
impact
extending
apprendi
new
jersey
guidelines
schemes
come
surprise
majority
ante
prior
today
one
ever
applied
apprendi
invalidate
application
guidelines
scheme
compare
state
gould
goodine
luciano
desumma
kinter
randle
helton
johnson
per
curiam
piggie
toliver
sanchez
fields
cadc
state
dilts
state
gore
state
lucas
state
dean
wl
ct
june
unpublished
opinion
thus
map
uncharted
territory
blazed
today
unprecedented
holding
numbers
available
federal
system
alone
staggering
march
federal
criminal
appeals
pending
defendant
sentence
issue
memorandum
carl
schlesinger
administrative
office
courts
library
june
available
clerk
case
file
june
apprendi
decided
march
defendants
sentenced
federal
memorandum
supra
given
nearly
federal
sentences
governed
federal
sentencing
guidelines
vast
majority
cases
guidelines
cases