March 21, 2005
New Jersey's view of Smylie and Shepard
As detailed here and here, last week the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on three major Blakely cases. Following the arguments, the state sent the NJ Supreme Court two follow-up letters, which can be downloaded below, concerning the meaning and impact of the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Smylie (basics here, commentary here and here and here), and the US Supreme Court's decision in Shepard (basics here, commentary here and here and here).
These follow-up letters are interesting not only for the accounts they give of Smylie and Shepard but also as another example of how differently the Supreme Court's rulings in Blakely and Booker can be understood and characterized.
March 21, 2005 at 09:44 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Jersey's view of Smylie and Shepard:
To say the Ind. Supreme Court ignored Booker is nonsense. The quoted passage from Justice Stevens' opinion does nothing more than repeat what the Court said in Blakely and Apprendi: a judge has discretion to sentence within the range authorized by the jury's verdict. In Indiana, the only sentence authorized by the jury's verdict, standing alone, is the presumptive. Booker didn't change anything ... at least not as Blakely applies to Indiana.
Posted by: Michael Limrick | Mar 21, 2005 10:27:19 PM