« Revealing my sentencing bias | Main | Some capital case buzz »
December 9, 2004
More Blakely news from the field
Two more interesting news reports about the post-Blakely worlds of state and federal sentencing:
- This article from Minnesota discusses a state sentencing in which, because of Blakely, "a separate sentencing hearing was conducted before the jury, and prosecutors successfully argued that [the defendant] should be given the maximum sentence under Minnesota's dangerous offender law."
- This article from Iowa discusses another federal sentencing which has been postponed awaiting a decision in Booker and Fanfan. The article indicates that the defendant's appointed federal public defender has objected — apparently unsuccessfully — to all of the government's continuance requests.
December 9, 2004 at 02:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8346c902269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Blakely news from the field:
Comments
The second one includes this strange line, "Taseff said it is not unusual for state courts to refer convicted felon firearm cases to the federal courts, as the sentence imposed in a lower court would likely carry about half the federal prison sentence." That makes no sense.
Posted by: Law Clerk | Dec 9, 2004 3:02:00 PM
While it is true that a state _court_ would not refer a case to a federal court, a state _prosecutor_ could (and often does) transfer the case to the federal system for the reasons articulated in the quote. In fact, I know of a number of federal US Attorney's offices who employ Special US Attorneys who work for both the state and the feds just so felon-in-possession cases can be moved to federal court in a more efficient manner.
Posted by: District Clerk Battling Blakely | Dec 9, 2004 3:35:13 PM
Well, of course that is true. I have never seen an (s)AUSA who is a part-time state prosecutor, but maybe I missed something there. Are you sure they are in the employ of both entitites.
Also, the article states that somehow a state court is a "lower" court.
Posted by: lawclerk | Dec 9, 2004 3:39:51 PM
