Sentencing Guideline Law & Practice Post-Booker
March 10, 2006The recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), invalidated the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as a mandatory sentencing scheme. Justice Stevens wrote the first part of the opinion (the “merits opinion”) holding that because the guidelines were mandatory and required judges to sentence defendants based on uncharged conduct, they violated the 6th Amendment as construed in Blakely v. Washington. The merits majority further held that the 6th Amendment required “juries, not judges, to find facts relevant to sentencing.” What, if anything, has changed since the Booker opinions were announced? This symposium considers the issues raised by the Booker opinions as well as post-Booker sentencing practice in the federal courts. In particular, participants and audience will debate and examine: how the Court arrived at Booker given recent precedent including Apprendi and Blakely; what impact the decisions have had and what issues they raise; and finally, how the future of federal sentencing should look. Friday March 10 — 8:30am to 5pm Pacific McGeorge Room S-4 & S-5 Seating is limited. Please RSVP to Pauline Rodriguez at prodriguez@pacific.edu. |
