« CJ Rehnquist has died | Main | DOJ brags about white-collar prosecutions (but is silent on sentences) »
September 4, 2005
The current SCOTUS sentencing head-count
I noted in my post on the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist that he was a key fifth vote in Almendarez-Torres and Harris. But only after completing that post did I reflect upon the current Supreme Court "head-count" on key cases in the Apprendi-Blakely-Booker jurisprudence. Consider these realities about the votes and views of the current seven Justices:
- There are still 5 supporting Apprendi, Blakely, and the Booker merits majority.
- Only 2 oppose the Apprendi-Blakely rule (Justices Kennedy and Breyer).
- There are 5 opposed to the Almendarez-Torres "prior conviction exception" to the Apprendi-Blakely rule (counting Justice Thomas in this number).
- Only 2 support the Almendarez-Torres exception (Justices Kennedy and Breyer).
- There are 4 opposed to the Harris "mandatory minimum" exception to the Apprendi-Blakely rule (and Justice Breyer never seemed too keen about this exception).
- At most, 3 support the Harris exception (Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer).
- There are 4 opposed to the remedy adopted in Booker.
- Only 3 support the Booker remedy (Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer).
- Based on the votes in Schriro, at least 4 may support Apprendi's retroactivity, and only 1 (Justice Kennedy) would seem to be a certain vote against Blakely's retroactivity.
The moral of this story for defense counsel and defendants is preserve, preserve, preserve; the moral for prosecutors might be to seek admissions or jury findings on all consequential facts. Apprendi and Blakely appear as solid as ever; Almendarez-Torres and Harris look remarkably weak.
This head-count also adds even more intrigue to my recent musings on which Blakely/Booker case and issue the Supreme Court will and should take up next. I am inclined to believe that a Court short on members might want to dodge tough Blakely/Booker issues for a while, but the Justices cannot run for too long from all the Blakely/Booker issues that urgently need attention.
September 4, 2005 at 02:52 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d834598ac969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The current SCOTUS sentencing head-count:
» Professorial Thoughts from Law Dork
Showing the impact in the criminal sentencing world of the loss of Chief Justice Rehnquist and retirement of Justice O'Connor, Doug Berman puts together a very interesting list of "which votes are left in the big sentencing cases?" The bottom... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 4, 2005 10:28:40 PM
» Blog Round-up - Monday, September 5th from SCOTUSblog
In Legal Affairs, here is former Rehnquist clerk Richard Garnett arguing that the conservative principles William Rehnquist revived will guide the court for decades to come, making him one of the most dominant chief justices in American history. Kermit... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 5, 2005 4:12:54 PM
» Blog Round-up - Monday, September 5th from SCOTUSblog
In Legal Affairs, here is former Rehnquist clerk Richard Garnett arguing that the conservative principles William Rehnquist revived will guide the court for decades to come, making him one of the most dominant chief justices in American history. Kermit... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 5, 2005 4:17:28 PM
» http://www.crimblawg.com/2005/09/supreme_court_l.html from Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court Line-Up on Sentencing Issues. Prof. Berman at Sentencing Law Policy has an interesting post descibing the line-up of the Court, without Rehnquist and O'Connor, on various sentencing issues, including Blakely/Apprendi and their Almendarez-... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 5, 2005 7:12:39 PM
Comments
i am the wife of a federal offender and i was told that if i have my information correct the in the federal system that ten months equal one year and i was told that during this legislature or something (i am not sure) that this new law would change from the 10 months = one year to 6 months = one year. if this is true has it a chance of passing or is this just something that the offenders are wishing. exactly how does this effect all the federal prisoners?
Posted by: lisa perez | Nov 15, 2005 10:21:01 PM
i am the wife of a federal offender and i was told that if i have my information correct the in the federal system that ten months equal one year and i was told that during this legislature or something (i am not sure) that this new law would change from the 10 months = one year to 6 months = one year. if this is true has it a chance of passing or is this just something that the offenders are wishing. exactly how does this effect all the federal prisoners?
Posted by: lisa perez | Nov 15, 2005 10:21:40 PM