« 6th Circuit discusses post-Booker requirements | Main | Can a variance for "co-defendant disparity" be reasonable? »

May 24, 2005

Fanfan to be resentenced today

I have heard from a helpful reader that Ducan Fanfan — who, in a future "law nerd" version of Trivial Pursuit, will be the answer to the question "What was the name of the defendant in the companion case to US v. Booker?" —  is scheduled to be resentenced today. 

Recall that Freddie Booker was a post-Booker loser because Wisconsin US District Judge Shabaz exercised his discretion to impose the same enhanced sentence upon resentencing that Booker initially received (details here).  But such a repeat resentencing result would be a win for Fanfan since, as detailed here, he originally received a 78-month sentence (rather than a sentence within the guidelines range of 188-235 months) because US District Judge Brock Hornby, sentencing Fanfan four days after Blakely was handed down, refused to consider facts beyond those established at Fanfan's trial.

I will, of course, share details about Ducan Fanfan's resentencing when I know more.

May 24, 2005 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8345910de69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fanfan to be resentenced today:

» Remember Two Things from Half the Sins of Mankind
His review of the sweeping-the-blogosphere Firefly DVD ... Frank's link to the bar exam version of Schoolhouse Rock ... This would be more specific than the future law nerd version of Trivial Pursuit that Doug Berman suggested [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 3, 2005 1:57:02 PM

Comments

Fanfan is not going to be as "lucky" as Booker. He will get tagged with a higher sentence. It would be "unreasonable" to do otherwise b/c the Judge improperly shielded himself from presumably valid information that this is a worse offender than the Judge had previously considered.

Posted by: Ooops | May 24, 2005 2:01:20 PM

"Presumably valid" information? That's a laugh. The whole point of Blakely was supposed to be that the 6th Amendment violation prevented the defendant from getting the factfinding-by-jury to which he's constitutionally entitled. And now we're left with all manner of accusations being "presumably valid" at sentencing. That's what happens when you split the baby.

Posted by: Bob Jenkins | May 24, 2005 3:18:21 PM

It is often more valid than the sob story "family circumstances" and "community involvement" stuff the defense bar is now trucking into court.

Posted by: Ooops | May 24, 2005 5:36:16 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB