{
  "id": "RS20850",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS20850",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102954,
      "date": "2001-03-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:26:28.077941",
      "title": "Federal Sentencing: A Sketch of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Its Impact",
      "summary": "In  Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), the Supreme Court called\ninto question\nthe sentencing role of federal judges. At the very least, the decision has required alterations in the\nmanner in which federal drug statutes and similar provisions are prosecuted, and it may herald the\ndemise of the federal sentencing guidelines.  Apprendi  holds that \"under the due process\nclause of the\nFifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other\nthan prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an\nindictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt,\" 120 S. Ct. at 2355. \nThe Court's sharp change of direction and the slim and fragile nature of the consensus among the\nmembers of the majority make predictions perilous. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the\nvarious federal appellate courts have thus far construed  Apprendi  narrowly.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS20850",
          "sha1": "0476cb9d396d12176afc1a8082cca2ba2a8c5474",
          "filename": "files/20010320_RS20850_0476cb9d396d12176afc1a8082cca2ba2a8c5474.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010320_RS20850_0476cb9d396d12176afc1a8082cca2ba2a8c5474.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}