« Predicting the unpredictable | Main | In other sentencing news »

January 11, 2005

More waiting: still no Booker and Fanfan

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog here, today is another no-show for Booker and Fanfan.  We may have only one more day to wait, since opinions are also due to be released tomorrow, but now I am starting to think the Supreme Court is enjoying teasing all of us.

January 11, 2005 at 10:09 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More waiting: still no Booker and Fanfan:


You are STARTING to think that they are enjoying this?

Posted by: aa | Jan 11, 2005 10:12:27 AM

They're making all of us nuts! I am a defense attorney and I have a PA Blakely case and ANYTHING that might make sense (at least to me) of their Blakely reasoning in light of McMillan would be welcome.

Posted by: Lynn Erickson | Jan 11, 2005 11:13:49 AM

I'm a reader with a lot of interested in both cases booker and fanfan. I just hope for the best. I read your articles everyday and I must give you thanks for keeping us informed.

Posted by: Yvonne Rodriguez | Jan 11, 2005 12:00:34 PM

I am the girlfriend of an inmate who's life is de
pending on this ruling. I wish for the best so that we may go on with your lives.

Posted by: opal hamilton | Jan 11, 2005 12:21:03 PM

I am a girlfriend of someone who is serving 7 years for something he should've only served 2 1/2 for. This was just brought to my attetion yesterday. Keep up the faith and the good work. Thanks.

Posted by: katherine | Jan 11, 2005 12:28:51 PM

I am a girlfriend of an inmate and this decision will make a big difference for him. He got 14 1/2 yrs when he should have only gotten 3 to 5.. Thanks for keeping all of us posted and keep up the good work.

Posted by: Kristie | Jan 11, 2005 12:39:14 PM

I am the girlfriend of an inmate whose life is depending on this ruling, he has served 5 1/2 years of a 19 1/2 year sentence, which should have only been a 3 to 4 year sentence. my prayers are with all who awaits this decision.

Posted by: Becky mullins | Jan 11, 2005 12:45:55 PM

I see many desperate girlfriends reading this blog... Interesting...

Posted by: Islandboy | Jan 11, 2005 1:32:40 PM

I don't think in anyway that we are desperate. We are just concerned about the outcome. There are plenty of individuals incarcerated for a very long period of time in the Federal prison system, some for which the Judges felt they can do more time then they should. I too have my fiance caught up in the Federal prison system, but I'm not desperate. I just want justice for my fiance and other that are caught up in the same system.

Posted by: Bon | Jan 11, 2005 2:21:01 PM

Well, I guess I'll throw my two-cents worth in. I'm the girlfriend of someone who is serving 87 months for something that should have had a max of 41 months (46 for relevant conduct).

Oddly someone from probation tried to tell me that these types of sentencings were the exception rather than the rule. If 9 of us reading this have this situation, who else out there is afflicted by the same problem?

Thanks Prof Berman! This site has been a blessing!

Posted by: Shelly | Jan 11, 2005 2:29:11 PM

My turn!! Yes, I'm desperate. For a ruling. This waiting is killing me. I'm the wife of an inmate who is serving 16 yrs. His guideline range was 8 to 10, but because of a mandatory minimum, he faced 10 to life. Was given an upward departure of 6 yrs. I don't even know if this ruling will help because he's already been sentenced, but seeing others here who's loved ones have already been sentenced gives me a little hope.

Posted by: Kim | Jan 11, 2005 2:43:42 PM

As I read all these posts from wives/girlfriends of federal inmates. It strikes me that the system is broken. Justice is key here, and my take is that the DOJ and local Ausa's have been screwing people for years. With the coming Booker/Fanfan decisions, those that have been providing the screwing, may in fact get screwed. If so, justice shall certainly be served. Girls, I'm rooting for you, lets pray for retroactivity.

Posted by: Bruce | Jan 11, 2005 2:45:45 PM

Ofcourse we are desperate, I am the wife of an inmate who has been incarcerated for the past 13 years because a judge added 10 years for something that his guideline points would have allowed him to be already released. So I ma really prayinf for retroactivity.

Posted by: asneth | Jan 11, 2005 3:06:43 PM

Ofcourse we are desperate, I am the wife of an inmate who has been incarcerated for the past 13 years because a judge added 10 years for something that his guideline points would have allowed him to be already released. So I ma really praying for retroactivity. I ma so desperate that I have email alerts on any Supreme Court Decisions on the days they sit.

Posted by: asneth | Jan 11, 2005 3:07:34 PM

Relevant conduct is not illegal. That is how the guidelines work. You all need to quit saying your husbands/boyfriends are serving time for something they shouldnt be serving time for. Did you appeal your cases to the circuit. If so, application of the guidelines by the District Court must have been affirmed if your loved one is still incarcerated. Whatever, the ruling by the Supreme Court it is very unlikely it will be retroactive.

Posted by: John | Jan 11, 2005 3:18:15 PM

When the so called "burden of proof" is met by the testimony of snitches for overt acts, that is justice, John?

Posted by: Willa | Jan 11, 2005 4:05:16 PM

Having a son awaiting Federal sentencing soon. I have witnessed the agrressive approach of the AUSA. In fact, issues relating to 'downward departures are cleverly masked by them during this process. Let us all remember, we are dealing with human beings here, (and as our Framer's demanded) 'The whole truth.

Posted by: donnatella | Jan 11, 2005 4:17:35 PM

So sorry to have to tell you this is NOT about the truth. Not the truth, the whole truth or any truth. It is about ASUAs getting a "win". Truth is twisted, masked, and turned inside out, in order to get that win. And they want to PUNISH. They want to punish the "offender" (even if he's not really guilty ... they'll MAKE him guilty with their made up evidence.) And they'll even punish the families, to make it harder on the guys. The kids and I have lost everything ... except each other. And we won't LET them destroy that, although they've tried. Please don't be so naive as to think this is in any way about truth ... or about justice. If justice was done, these AUSAs would be the ones serving time.

Posted by: Cathy | Jan 11, 2005 5:28:04 PM

John, you are entitled to your opinion. However, since you are not familiar with any of these cases or their circumstances, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge. As far as appeals go, that's a joke. No, we didn't appeal his sentencing because AUSA made sure he waived that right, and the right to a 2255, in his plea agreement.

Posted by: Kim | Jan 11, 2005 5:28:52 PM

I'm a girlfirend of a inmate that was just sentance to 18 yrs.and for his crime he was only cerpose to have gotten 5-10yrs. the judge inhance his sentence.they careered him out and that is not fair so the blakely & fin fin case will help us greatly.the main thing is when they sentence our love ones they lock us up to.they make it hard when they send them far away from home. so everyone please keep the faith and keep praying.

Posted by: sharon | Jan 11, 2005 5:57:52 PM

I have a loved one in the Federal system and he should have been handed down a sentence of 63-78 months. Instead he received 210 months and the appellate court topped it off with a career offender. We are hoping that the justices favor for Booker and FanFan. This would be one prayer that would definitely be answered by many.

Posted by: Barbara | Jan 11, 2005 8:29:05 PM

I have been a victim of the system.
Here are my comments :

I have read most of the comments and wish the best and pray for their future. There is an old addage "justice is blind" - with the blindfold, if anyone has cared to notice and "understand" when entering the courthouses around the country.

Yes, indeed justice is blind and ask the people who have been vicitimised by "over-zealous" prosecutors (who don't give a hoot about justice). For them winning at any cost can advance their careers or at the least maintain their careers. We should in fact have a "Criminal Justice Ombudsman" with a 15-member overseeing committee, and further be divided at regional or state level (maximum tenure of 5 years). These members should appoint retired judges, law professors, civilians, and other reputed attorneys (including former prosecutors) to create hearing panels. Each such panel should comprise of 3-member "adjudication panel" (with a maximum tenure of 3 years). They should have broad powers to override, adjust or enhance any judicial decision and they should also have the power to investigate any prosecutorial abuse or misconduct. As far as prosecutors are concerned, Ombudsman can ONLY recommend suspension, etc. for prosecutorial abuse, but another body should be established to review such abuse(s). As far as, the "adjudication panel" - cases should be only taken up which have "merit" after a thorough review. The rules of evidence should be afforded the broadest latitude - because after all we are trying to seek "justice" and know the "whole truth", not what can be turned and twisted. As we all have known in criminal justice, the famous "catch-all" charges by the prosecution is "conspiracy".

This is just a brief notation, due to lack of space. After all, we already have an IRS - Ombudsman, so why not for Criminal Justice. Here we are not talking about loss in terms of dollars, but about human life, families and friends lives and so forth, when someone is victimised. The SC will do the right thing in Booker/Fanfan, though I doubt there will be any retroactivity. But if an Ombudsman is appointed, the panel may look into such cases too, to do the "justice". Good luck to all those who eagerly await a favorable decision.

Posted by: AKS | Jan 12, 2005 12:23:30 AM


Booker and Fanfan won't help your loved one that is a career offender. That is driven by his criminal history. He must have committed a violent or drug trafficking crime and had two such prior offenses. That type of person deserves to be locked up for as long as possible. There is a reason they named that enhancement "career offender."

Posted by: John | Jan 12, 2005 9:15:14 AM

Mr John, I hope and pray that you are never caught up in the system. Because you will really suffer. Since you are so narrow minded. I take it you come from the perfect family, where no one has ever committed a crime. Wow I would hate to see someone in your family in prison, they would get no support from you. That's really sad.

Posted by: pissed off | Jan 12, 2005 9:24:00 AM

Pissed Off, you've got to remember that the "other side" reads this blog as well.

Posted by: Kim | Jan 12, 2005 10:19:38 AM

John, don't know your story but I do know this you're a cold-hearted person with no regard for anyone's feelings! Since you don't know the facts of any of our cases you should reserve judgment--unless you're GOD that is!

Posted by: ST | Jan 12, 2005 11:58:39 AM

everyone I'm just now checking back to see how everyone is doing. I notice a respones from john
well john, I would like you to know that it's people like you that make me stand behind my man even the more.thank GOD that you dont have to make decison over people lives THANK GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!.but back to people that have a heart,dont let people like john stand in your.lets hang in there for the ones we LOVES
lets keep fighting andstanding beside them.

Posted by: sharon | Jan 14, 2005 11:00:51 PM

I am a defense attorney who has case where defendant plead to small amount of methamphetamine and has two prior meth convictions. Since Booker held that the USSG were advisory, are there any reported cases where the career offender statute was not applicable post Booker? The most favorable cases that I found post Booker was the court could move away from the career offender statute, but not indicating that career offender statute was unconstitutional.


Posted by: Scott Bandstra | Sep 29, 2005 1:05:54 PM


Posted by: TANYA | Apr 14, 2007 4:26:38 AM

I too have my man caught up on a 10 year term for a 3 year term sentence. All based on he said she said. Many "facts" brought on by the past statements. They took in his first conviction (3 years ago)and brought it back to the present.

Posted by: Erica | Aug 19, 2007 11:06:49 PM

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