November 18, 2004
Blakely federalism in action
With this week's US Sentencing Commission hearing (highlights here and here, commentary coming soon) and a ruling in Booker and Fanfan likely only a few weeks away, it is dangerously easy get caught up in all the compelling federal Blakely stories. But I continue to be most amazed as I observe and try to monitor the dynamic (and now very fast moving) state Blakely dramas that are unfolding nationwide.
In posts here and here, I documented a number of the major recent state ruling from the past week alone. And to that list we should now add State v. Henderson, 2004 WL 2608286 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, Nov. 18, 2004), which weighs in on the important question (recently discussed in Illinois as noted here) concerning whether Blakely error is "structural error requiring automatic reversal." (Henderson holds, by a 2-1 vote, that it is not.)
In addition, I can now share noteworthy commentary on some of these state developments: (1) here is a newspaper article from California on a discussing Blakely reversal; (2) here are thoughtful comments suggesting Ohio courts are illegitimately dodging Blakely; and (3) for downloading below is an impressive set of comments about the aftermath of the major New Jersey ruling in State v. Natale, 2004 WL 2599892 (N.J. Super. A.D. Nov. 17, 2004) prepared by Steve Sanders, who wrote an amicus brief in the case for the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.
November 18, 2004 at 03:44 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blakely federalism in action:
Posted by: | Oct 14, 2008 6:22:30 AM