Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, which made the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, one question confounds lawyers, judges and legal scholars: how much weight should a district court give the now-advisory guidelines? In two cases up this term, Claiborne v. United States, and United States v. Rita, the Supreme Court is poised to answer this question.
Since the Booker decision, circuit courts have taken different approaches in applying it. Data compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission indicate that even though the circuits have adopted different standards of review, there has been little overall effect on the outcome of cases at the district court level. Thus, there has not been a revolution in sentencing practices. The question posed by Claiborne and Rita is whether the Court will upset this balance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
