« Applying Ford and Atkins in the Fourth Circuit | Main | A local perspective on Foster »
March 9, 2006
Buzz about the House hearing on Booker
As detailed here, next week is going to be about brackets and Booker hearings. And I now have more information about the likely witnesses for the House Subcommittee's oversight hearing scheduled for Thursday March 16 on "US v. Booker: One Year Later — Chaos or Status Quo?". The four persons likely to testify will be:
- USSC Chair Judge Ricardo Hinojosa
- Criminal Law Committee Chair Judge Paul Cassell
- Attorney James Felman (who should, I think, be able to present an ABA position)
- A representative of the Department of Justice
Among the many interesting storylines will be whether DOJ will use this hearing to push for a "minimum guideline system" Booker fix (aka topless guidelines). Recall that AG Alberto Gonzales endorsed this idea when calling for a legislative "Booker fix" in a speech this past summer (basics here, commentary here and here and here). Relatedly, I wonder if the Sentencing Commission will make any specific legislative recommendations or will just be content to set forth data and express its eagerness to work with Congress.
Anticipating a Booker fix showdown, I can provide lots of background on the brewing Booker fix debate. For example, there is my on-going "Dead Booker walking?" series which explores arguments that DOJ might make in support of a Booker fix:
Additional useful background can also be found in the recent Legal Affairs' Debate Club at this link where Professor Frank Bowman and I explored the future of federal sentencing. And, of course, three recent issues of the Federal Sentencing Reporter linked below have Booker coverage galore:
March 9, 2006 at 06:48 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d834af734169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Buzz about the House hearing on Booker:
Comments
Does Felman actually have any clients, or is this hearing going to be just a series of prosecutors and people with no real experience representing people facing long sentences?
Posted by: anon | Mar 9, 2006 8:15:05 PM