November 28, 2011
Lots of details on the new SCOTUS sentencing cases
Via SCOTUSblog at this post, I can provide here more information and links to key documents in the exciting new sentencing cases taken up by the Supreme Court this morning:
[T]he Court had been holding one of today’s granted petitions, Hill v. United States, to be considered alongside several other petitions that raise the same issue: whether the Fair Sentencing Act (which reduced the crack-powder sentencing differential) applies in an initial sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date if the offense occurred before that date.... Hill has been consolidated with Dorsey v. United States (case page forthcoming), for a total of one hour of argument....
Hill v. United States (Granted)
Docket: 11-5721Certiorari stage documents:
Issue(s): Whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies in an initial sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date if the offense occurred before that date.
- Opinion below (7th Cir.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief for the United States
- Petitioner's reply (forthcoming)
Southern Union Company v. United States (Granted)
Docket: 11-94Certiorari stage documents:
Issue(s): Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles that this Court established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, apply to the imposition of criminal fines.
Recent related posts on the new SCOTUS cases:
- SCOTUS to review FSA pipeline issue via Dorsey and Hill grants
- SCOTUS to decide whether Apprendi applies to criminal fines via Southern Union
November 28, 2011 at 03:24 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of details on the new SCOTUS sentencing cases :
As best as I can tell, all "Pipeline" defendants who were sentenced under pre-FSA guidelines would be eligible for reduced sentences if SCOTUS sides with Hill. However, if those pipeline cases already applied for a reduction under the Sentencing Commission's new retroactive policy, then a Hill decision means almost nothing.
However, it seems to me that there would be a bunch of pipeline-defendants serving mandatory minimums who were not helped by the new USSC policy who may get reduced sentences if SCOTUS sides with Hill.
Would these MM pipeline cases be the only inmates affected by this decision?
Posted by: PCR Consultants | Nov 28, 2011 5:38:52 PM