« More fireworks in the Eighth Circuit | Main | The Vera Institute Speaks!! »

August 5, 2004

Just when you thought it was safe to go into the blog...

On a day I was hoping would be quiet so I could wrap up critical pre-vacation tasks, we get yet one more major event: another thoughtful and insightful (and long) Blakely opinion from district judge who is rightly regarded as an intellectual leader in the field of sentencing. Available for download below is US District Judge Gerald Lynch's opinion in US v. Emmenegger. As an esteemed sentencing scholar noted when sending me this opinion:

Like Judge Nancy Gertner, Judge Lynch is one of the most sophisticated judges on the federal bench in sentencing issues. And yet we see Judges Gertner and Lynch at odds on the main issue: Judge Lynch "remains convinced" of the constitutionality of the federal guidelines (Emmenegger at 38) while Judge Gertner sees "no question that [Blakely's] test applies to the federal guidelines. " (Mueffleman at 22). Further proof was not needed that the Supreme Court has rendered the current law in this field unintelligible, but here it is.

Download lynch_emmenegger_opinion.doc

August 5, 2004 at 02:05 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Just when you thought it was safe to go into the blog...:


I am an insurance agent whose son is serving a 6 year Habitual Offender Sentence for minor drug charges in Louisiana. My son needed some prison time since no treatment was available at the time. We went to court to have his sentence declared illegal on July 13th and the Judge ruled in his favor but the minutes were unclear and he is still being held. I am 72, my wife 70, and we are active in our independent agency business. We hope that the matter will be resolved quickly but he will be recharged by the Asst. DA and return to court in November. Looks like we are going to have to fight some more.

Posted by: Maurice Mouton | Aug 6, 2004 12:01:02 PM

I am a paralegal whose loved one is in federal prison for 87 months on something the guidelines say he should be doing a maximum of 41 on. The offer before trial was a max of 30. His appeal has been filed, including Blakely. They added 46 months for relevant conduct with no downward departure for good works in his lifetime, even though he had a 3-star general on his side. He is not a bad person, just trusted the wrong people and didn't get things in writing to cover his backside. He knows better now, but 87 months for a non-violent crime is a high price to pay for being trusting. He did nothing to break the law intentionally, as happens to many people with white-collar and non-violent convictions. Your coverage and updates regarding these important issues have made our lives easier. Thank you for your continued coverage.

Posted by: Shelly Thornton | Aug 11, 2004 3:55:56 PM

My son needed some prison time since no treatment was available at the time.

Posted by: Robe de Soirée 2013 | Dec 14, 2012 1:21:59 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