{
  "id": "RS21876",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS21876",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104691,
      "date": "2004-09-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:08:55.834244",
      "title": "Judge, Jury and Sentencing Guidelines: Their Respective Roles Following the Supreme Court's Decision in Blakely v. Washington",
      "summary": "In  Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S.  466 (2000), the United States Supreme Court\nheld that except\nin the case of recidivists a judge could not sentence a criminal defendant to a term of imprisonment\ngreater than that which the statutory maximum assigned to the crime for which he had been\nconvicted by the jury. In  Blakely v. Washington , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), the Court made\nit clear that\n Apprendi  meant that when sentencing a criminal defendant under sentencing guidelines\na judge may\nproceed up the severity scale only so far as the specific findings of the jury will allow. Facts new\nto a jury's verdict or to a defendant's guilty plea may not be relied upon for a judicially determined\n\"upward departure\" or other enhancement in order to impose a sentence more severe than the verdict\nor plea alone will support. Although it arose out of a state sentencing proceeding,\n Blakely  has\nobvious implications for the federal guidelines system. It appears that to the extent to which that\nsystem permits sentence enhancements based on judicial findings of \"relevant conduct,\" \"sentencing\nfactors,\" or grounds for \"upward departures,\" the facts upon which they are based must have been\npresented to the jury or the right must have been clearly waived. Although it may constitute\nprosecutorial inconvenience, the obligation apparently may be honored by including the facts\nestablishing the relevant conduct, sentencing factors or grounds for upward departure in the\nindictment or information prior to trial. In cases decided by plea without a trial, it apparently need\nonly be reflected in the plea agreement\n  The Supreme Court has agreed to consider  Blakely 's implications for the federal\n sentencing\nguidelines,  United States v. Booker ,  cert. granted ,     U.S.   \n  (2004);  United States v. Fanfan ,  cert.\ngranted ,     U.S.     (2004). Related reports include  CRS Report RL32573(pdf) ,  United States Sentencing\nGuidelines and the Supreme Court: Booker, Fanfan, Blakely, Apprendi, and Mistretta ,\navailable in\nabridged form as  CRS Report RS21932 ,  United States Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely:\nBooker\nand Fanfan -- A Sletch .",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS21876",
          "sha1": "ec7ce5ec99d04819ac8bdf1dac8b11fad993dd92",
          "filename": "files/20040915_RS21876_ec7ce5ec99d04819ac8bdf1dac8b11fad993dd92.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040915_RS21876_ec7ce5ec99d04819ac8bdf1dac8b11fad993dd92.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}