Prometheus 6

Justices, in 5-4 Vote, Raise Doubts on Sentencing Rules
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: June 25, 2004

WASHINGTON, June 24 — The Supreme Court invalidated the criminal sentencing system of the State of Washington on Thursday in a decision that also cast doubt on whether the 20-year-old federal sentencing guidelines can survive a constitutional challenge.

Bitterly split in a 5-to-4 decision that cut across the court's usual ideological lines, the justices continued a profound five-year-long debate over the respective roles of judges and juries in criminal sentencing. In this case, they ratcheted that debate up to a new level that left the federal guidelines in constitutional limbo and cast doubt on the validity of thousands of sentences, at both the state and federal level.

Sentencing in about a dozen states is likely to be affected by the ruling.

In a separate decision, the court rejected the retroactive application of a 2002 death penalty ruling, placing as many as 100 inmates in five states back on death row.

In the Washington guidelines case, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion held that the Washington system, permitting judges to make findings that increase a convicted defendant's sentence beyond the ordinary range for the crime, violated the right to trial by jury protected by the Sixth Amendment. The facts supporting increased sentences must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, Justice Scalia said.

…The decision overturned a ruling by the Washington Supreme Court, which had upheld the state system. While several high courts in states with guidelines systems have likewise rejected constitutional challenges based on the Apprendi precedent, one court, the Supreme Court of Kansas, struck down its system, which the state then quickly modified.

According to various lists, which may not be definitive, states that use systems similar to Washington's are Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor said the court had entered "uncharted territory." She said the guidelines systems represented an effort to treat like cases alike, giving "guided discretion" to judges while eliminating wide disparities in sentencing that turned on judicial "idiosyncrasies" or racial bias.

"It is difficult for me to discern what principle besides doctrinaire formalism actually motivates today's decision," she said.

Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, said the criminal justice system was now left with a range of unattractive options, including such steps as separate jury trials for sentencing, a system now reserved for death penalty cases. As a practical matter, he said, such a system would be workable only because most defendants forego trials and plead guilty.

Whether criminal defendants as a whole are likely to be helped or hurt by the ruling is open to debate. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs on Mr. Blakely's behalf. But Justice Breyer suggested that one legislative response to the ruling might be "astronomically high sentences," from which judges could depart downward at their discretion.

Justice Kennedy's brief dissenting opinion said the court had both ignored principles of federalism and had failed to respect the need for "the dynamic and fruitful dialogue between the judicial and legislative branches of government that has marked sentencing reform on both the state and the federal levels for more than 20 years."