February 18, 2007
Revving up for Claiborne and Rita: shameless self-promotion
I am so eagerly anticipating the Supreme Court's work in Claiborne and Rita in part because I have written so much over the last few years about Blakely, Booker and modern sentencing reforms in light of the Court's modern sentencing jurisprudence. With the arguments in Claiborne and Rita now only days away, I cannot resist this self-serving post assembling some of my major writings (with dates of publication):
- Conceptualizing Booker (Spring 2006)
- Conceptualizing Blakely (Fall 2004)
- Beyond Blakely and Booker: Pondering Modern Sentencing Process (Spring 2005)
- Reconceptualizing Sentencing (Summer 2005)
- Distinguishing Offense Conduct and Offender Characteristics (Fall 2005)
- Tweaking Booker: Advisory Guidelines in the Federal System (Summer 2006)
- Making Sentencing Sensible (with Stephanos Bibas) (Fall 2006)
- Reasoning Through Reasonableness (Summer 2006)
- What's the Future of Federal Sentencing? (with Frank Bowman) (Winter 2006)
- Perspectives on Booker's Potential (Winter 2006)
- Now What? The Post-Booker Challenge for Congress and the Sentencing Commission (Spring 2006)
Major Amicus Efforts
- Claiborne and Rita: Reasonableness review in the Supreme Court (Winter 2007)
- Crack sentencing in many circuits (Spring 2006)
- Reasonableness review in the Ninth Circuit (Summer 2006)
- Reasonableness review of veteran's variance (Fall 2006)
February 18, 2007 at 02:25 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Revving up for Claiborne and Rita: shameless self-promotion:
Prof. Berman, I'm still having trouble squaring your proposed offense/offender distinction with Ring, which, per Apprendi, required the jury to decide offender characteristics (i.e., aggravating factors in a capital sentencing proceeding) and disallowed a judge from doing so.
It doesn't seem like a viable distinction to me, given Ring.
Posted by: Matthew Byrne | Feb 18, 2007 8:43:36 PM
Matt, with my offense/offender distinction, I am not trying to perfectly describe how the Court has developed its Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, rather I have been trying to suggest how the Court should develop this jurisprudence.
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 19, 2007 12:54:51 AM
Interesting, Doug. Thanks.
Posted by: Byrne | Feb 19, 2007 4:37:01 PM