Friday, July 09, 2004

Morning News

A reader of this blog writes:

News from Connecticut

Senior US District Judge Peter Dorsey of the District of Connecticut has
issued a memorandum opinion adopting what Croxford considers "the second
option" - that is, finding that upward enhancements are barred by
Blakely but that, under the maxim that courts must avoid constitutional
consequences at all costs, the Guidelines as a whole need not be found
unconstitutional. The case is US v. Toro, 3:02CR362(PCD). (Thanks to Prof. Berman for posting this information earlier in the day)

From the Third Circuit

Supplemental briefing on Blakely in the Third Circuit will be available shortly. The case is US v Mussare & Bruce. The reader cautions that due to very strict and stingly page limits, the analysis is cursory. Apparently, the court has not requested an argument on the issue.

The 11th Circuit

The following news comes from a reader in the 11th Circuit:

The case holds that Apprendi and Blakely do not
apply to a drug sentence enhanced by a judge who makes a
preponderance-of-evidence determination that the crime caused death or
serious bodily injury: "Whatever other effect the Supreme Court's recent decision in
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, __ S. Ct. __, No. 02-1632, slip. op. at 7 (June
24, 2004), may have, it does not undermine the validity of minimum mandatory
sentences, at least not where the enhanced minimum does not exceed the

SPERO v. USA , No. 03-14586 (11th Cir. July 08, 2004)

To read the full text of this opinion, click here

Good Stuff

Several readers have written in with their views, opinions and daily Blakely encounters. A reader from Georgia writes:

I have been wanting to file a motion for over a year on the separation of powers issue & unconstitutionality of the guidelines.

Much more to come, stay tuned…

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?