« Big Supreme Court week ahead | Main | Important capital IAC and AEDPA rulings from SCOTUS »

June 20, 2005

SCOTUS refuses to take on Booker plain error

SCOTUSblog and How Appealing are always the places to go for all the information on today's big day at the Supreme Court.   And, as detailed in this post by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, there is already big news for sentencing nuts, as this morning the Supreme Court refused to take up Booker plain error in the Rodriguez case from the 11th Circuit.  This development is surprising because the SG has called for cert. to be granted (details here and also here), and the three-way circuit split on this major Booker pipeline issue really cries out to be resolved by the Supreme Court (background here and here).

More news and decisions will be coming this morning from the Supreme Court, and I will cover any important sentencing angles in later posts.

June 20, 2005 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8344a2e6753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS refuses to take on Booker plain error:

Comments

Not necessarily so surprising. The defendant wanted cert granted because he could only gain if the Court were to adopt a plain error standard more favorable than the 11th Circuit's. The SG acquiesced, because they thought they could get an affirmance and stop the "bleeding" in the 3d and 6th Circuits, and the somewhat less generous but still better-than-nothing "Crosby" approach of the 1st/2d/7th/9th etc. The Supreme Court, however, takes an objective, cold-blooded, institutional view -- the pipeline is short and rapidly drying out. No great injustice is being done to anyone, they must feel, although treatment around the country is indeed unequal. By the time they could get a decision in Rodriguez issued, it would be next December or January. I figure they calculated it wasn't worth the trouble.

Posted by: Peter G | Jun 20, 2005 11:32:52 AM

I am a former attorney whose case was
remanded by the Supreme Court to the 6th
Circuit and then remanded back to the
District Court. There are several con-stitutional challenges to my conviction
and the sentence under Blakley and Booker
would have been only 12 months. I was re-
leased on bail in March. Jenner & Block
from Chicago will represent me at the
re=sentencing. Under the Guidelines I
should have received 12 months. The main
case is reported at 280 F3d 704. There is
a jurisdictional challenge under Winship,
Gaudin, Jones, Apprendi, RFing, Blakely and
Booker which may ultimately result in
another cert. petition. I apprecaite your
blog-site since it keeps me abreast of what
is going on in the Circuits. Continue your
good work.

Posted by: Jack C. Chilingirian | Jun 24, 2005 10:55:41 AM

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