June 6, 2005
Raich commentary galore
The blogsphere is, unsurprisingly, buzzing with analysis and commentary on the Supreme Court's decision today in Raich (basics here). There is already a week's worth of interesting commentary from many heavy-hitters over at SCOTUSblog, and certainly The Volokh Conspiracy is living up to Orin's promise of lots of Raich-blogging.
Not to be overlooked, and of special interest for folks interested in sentencing topics, Mike over at Crime & Federalism has created this great mega-post of his early Raich analysis, which gives particular attention to the intersection of federalism and criminal justice concerns. Other posts on Raich at Crime & Federalism are also must-reads.
Since all these bright lights have Raich well-covered, I am disinclined to add further to the deluge of Raich words (though I must note with amusement's Justice Stevens' comical reference, late in the Court's opinion, to marijuana as an "extraordinarily popular substance"). But I am inclined to spotlight and link below some pre-Raich posts in which I have explored various federalism and sentencing intersections:
- Reasons for rooting for criminal justice federalism
- Criminal justice, constitutional law, federalism and hot button issues
- Apprendi, Blakely and federalism
- Blakely, federalism, retroactivity and pragmatism
June 6, 2005 at 03:52 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Raich commentary galore:
I am a student. Thanks very much for for the great writing on this site - very helpful information...
Posted by: Mike d | Jun 6, 2005 4:53:23 PM
Thank you for the great log of information. I am desparately looking for help on this subject and your blog is very helpful. I have just found it and have spent the past few hours reading and getting up to date.
I am a lawyer, having practiced for 20 years in Oregon. I am now in AZ studying for the bar and doing contract work.
The case that I am working on is an Idaho sentencing after Blakely. The sentence was under the state's indeterminate sentencing scheme. The Judge clearly increased the prison time for our client based on his determination that the client had committed the crime which was dismissed in the deal. However, the increase was still within the statutory maximum.
I am trying to find any other case decided in an indeterminate sentencing state. The only ones that I have found have flatly dismissed any arguments based on Blakely. I am trying to find any support out there and also to formulate an argument despite Blakely's statement that the ruling does not apply to indeterminate sentencing.
It seems to me that there should be a Blakely violation if the court enhances the sentence, even within the statutory max. Even if it is within the statutory maximum, an greater sentence is a greater sentence and if it is based on unadjudicated facts, it violates the right to a jury trial.
I do not see any indeterminate cases in your blog. Are you aware of any such cases?
Thank you so much for your help!
Posted by: Janine | Jun 6, 2005 9:04:54 PM