Blakely….. WOW!!

The Supreme Court handed down Blakely v. Washington this morning, and the only word that summarizes the ruling is WOW. Here is a link to all the opinions in Blakely, which essentially holds that any and every fact which increases the legally available sentence must be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. In other words, it will no longer be constitutional for guideline sentencing systems to allow judges to find facts which increase applicable sentencing ranges. Of course, this is how nearly every sentencing guideline system works, and thus the ramifications of this decision for modern sentencing reforms cannot be overstated.

Each of the four opinions — Scalia for the majority, O’Connor, Kennedy and Breyer all dissenting — is rich with intrigiung ideas, compelling arguments and rhetorical flourishes. Sentencing scholars and also constitutional scholars are likely to be talking about this opinion for a long time. And, of course, Blakely will not be the last word on these subjects. There will be lots and lots more litigation (some of which will surely make its way again to the Supreme Court) about what this rule now means for the operation of structured sentencing systems. Stay tuned.