August 24, 2004
A bit of late day Blakely news
Though the media coverage of Blakely has slowed to a trickle, we still get a story or two of interest from the newspapers. This article, for example, discusses Blakely's impact on Oregon state sentencing practices and notes that Governor Ted Kulongoski has appointed Phil Lemmon, executive director of the state's Criminal Justice Commission, "and others to study Blakely's impact on Oregon's criminal justice system." Interestingly, Oregon officials in this article suggest the Blakely impact will not be too consequential:
Lemmon figures the ruling could affect 200 to 300 cases currently in the system. That probably includes five to 10 in Washington County, said District Attorney Robert W. Hermann: "In the grand scheme of things, I'd estimate it only affects 10 percent of all cases."Yet, as previously noted here, at least one member of Oregon defense bar has said that the implications of Blakely for Oregon are "absolutely enormous."
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, this article from Alabama discusses the case of a local businessman who now "has been indicted for the fourth time since his November arrest on drug-trafficking charges." According to the federal prosecutor involved, the latest re-indictment was the direct result of Blakely:
The added detail is because of new U.S. Department of Justice policy following the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Blakely v. Washington, according to A. Clark Morris, U.S. assistant attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. "The only reason that the case was superseded was the Blakely case," said Morris.... "So all factors that would increase his sentence we've added," Morris said.With sincere apologies to the Peaches & Herb classic, this story has me humming "Re-indicted and it feels so good...."
August 24, 2004 at 10:42 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A bit of late day Blakely news:
Actually, on June 28th, SCOTUS granted cert, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Blakely in Dilts v. Oregon. 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4584. So Washington State is not out there all alone. And Dilts is another reason to think that SCOTUS is not going to back-track on Blakely at least as far as the States are concerned.
Posted by: Michael Ausbrook | Aug 25, 2004 2:32:33 AM