July 19, 2004
Sixth Circuit going en banc in Montgomery
In a post available here, I noted some prudential considerations that might lead active members of the Sixth Circuit to let the Montgomery decision stand (background here), even though the bold and opaque ruling likely does not represent the views of a majority of active judges on the court. But Howard Bashman at How Appealing has the official word and details here that the Sixth Circuit issued an order "granting the request of a member of the Court for rehearing of this case en banc." Consequently, the "previous decision and judgment of this Court is vacated, the mandate is stayed. Supplemental briefs are due from both sides on July 28. As I suggested here right after Montgomery was handed down, the decision to take Montgomery en banc is not surprising given the peculiar factual setting for a big Blakely ruling and the not wholly representative judges on the panel.
As noted in my earlier post, by granting en banc review and vacating the original panel decision, sentencing rules within the Sixth Circuit are returned to uncertainly (and potential disparity from district to district) until a decision is rendered by the en banc court. In addition, because of the peculiarities of the Montgomery case as a setting for addressing Blakely, I think courts and litigants in the Sixth Circuit might have occasion to wonder whether the en banc court will (or even should) address Blakely at all when the issue might be altogether avoided.
In short, the chaos continues. A few posts soon will discuss the status and prospects of developing clean-up efforts.
July 19, 2004 at 11:19 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sixth Circuit going en banc in Montgomery:
Keep up the good work. I have several 6th circuit cases with Blakely implications (and others in 1st and 3rd). I filed a supplemental brief in Sawyers, 02-5835, a classic Blakely. Sawyers went to trial, so there's no waiver issues. The court instructed me to file a supplemental brief on 7/28, the same date Montgomery gets briefed. I wonder if they'll merge them for one en banc.
Law Offices of Robert Little
515 Valley Street, Suite 170, Maplewood, NJ 07040, 973 313-9700
116 John Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10038, 212 221-6556
Posted by: Robert Little | Jul 20, 2004 4:30:21 PM
In addition, because of the peculiarities of the Montgomery case as a setting for addressing Blakely, I think courts and litigants in the Sixth Circuit might have occasion to wonder whether the en banc court will (or even should) address Blakely at all when the issue might be altogether avoided.
Posted by: Robe de Soirée 2013 | Dec 13, 2012 12:25:29 AM