The court's late-June decision has delayed or halted sentencing
in federal courts around the country because of the questions it raised
about the constitutionality of federal guidelines judges use to set
sentences. The case, known as Blakely vs. Washington, came to the U.S.
Supreme Court from Washington state, which has a sentencing system similar
to the one used in federal courts.
. . .
Sentencing guidelines allow judges to adjust an offender's sentence within
a specified range based on factors in the case. In Delaware courts, those
guidelines are advisory, but in federal court, they are binding.
Federal sentencing guidelines are calculated through a complex process that
takes into account such factors as an offender's history, the amount of
loss in financial cases and how much responsibility someone accepts for a
crime.
In the Blakely case, the Supreme Court ruled that for judges to use the
guidelines to increase an offender's sentence based on specific facts,
those facts must be reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the
offenders.
. . .
The Blakely decision affected the guidelines so much that some legal
observers believe it has rendered them unconstitutional, said Christopher
S. Koyste, a federal public defender in Wilmington who has had sentencings
postponed for two clients.
Koyste said he has a criminal appeal pending with the 3rd Circuit that
presents questions about the Blakely decision and its impact on federal
sentencing guidelines. A jury found Koyste's client sold a kilogram of
cocaine but at sentencing, a judge took other statements from the case into
account and sentenced the offender for contact with 12 kilograms of cocaine.
Guidelines allowed the judge to give a more than 15-year sentence on the
higher amount of drugs instead of a sentence of between six and eight years
for just one kilogram.
This is an unprecedented opportunity to create a fair and constitutional
sentencing system and it would probably include guidelines, said Jack
King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
which disagrees with Clement's assessment of the upheaval the Blakely
decision caused in federal courts.
It really has not caused havoc, King said.
