{
  "id": "RL32573",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32573",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 302560,
      "date": "2005-03-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:50:04.617029",
      "title": "United States Sentencing Guidelines and the Supreme Court: Booker, Fanfan, Blakely, Apprendi, and Mistretta",
      "summary": "For fifteen years, sentencing in federal court had been governed by the United States Sentencing\nGuidelines. During that time, the Supreme Court has upheld the Guidelines in the face of various\nchallenges. In the meantime, however, it had decided a series of cases which called into question\npast assumptions relating to the role of the jury in the sentencing process. In  Apprendi , the\nCourt\nheld that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum assigned for\nthat offense must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. The federal\nSentencing Guidelines were considered beyond the reach of  Apprendi  because they only\ngovern\nsentencing beneath the maximum penalty assigned to the crime of conviction. In  Blakely ,\nhowever,\nthe Court held that the \u201cstatutory maximum\u201d for  Apprendi  purposes\nconstituted the applicable\nstatutory sentencing guideline maximum, not the higher statutory maximum assigned to the crime\nof conviction. This raised questions as to the constitutional validity of the federal Sentencing\nGuidelines which the Court agreed to address in two consolidated cases,  Booker  and\n Fanfan . \n \n Together the cases presented two issues: (1) Was the judicial factfinding that was central to the\noperation of the federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional in light of the principles announced\nin  Apprendi  and  Blakely ? (2) If so, was the taint severable or did it doom the\nSentencing Guidelines\nand perhaps the Sentencing Reform Act that authorized them? The Court concluded that the answer\nto the first question was yes but that the solution was to convert the Guidelines to advisory standards\nby severing only those sections of the Sentencing Reform Act that made the Guidelines binding on\nthe lower federal courts.\n \n The alignment of the justices in the two-part  Booker  decision is such that the prediction\nof\nfuture developments is even more perilous than usual. Some may find clarification in the\nCourt\u2019s\nlater decision in  United States v. Shepard . Thus far the Court has exempted the fact of a\nprior\nconviction from the facts that must be found by the jury. In  Shepard  a plurality of the Court\ndeclined\nto allow the lower federal courts to make factual determinations concerning the existence of the fact\nof a prior conviction for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. \n \n This report appears in abridged form as  CRS Report RS21932 ,  United States Sentencing\nGuidelines After  Blakely :  Booker  and  Fanfan  -- A Sketch.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32573",
          "sha1": "c26182f21b0d55f99a536d332918c157cc2f37b1",
          "filename": "files/20050321_RL32573_c26182f21b0d55f99a536d332918c157cc2f37b1.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050321_RL32573_c26182f21b0d55f99a536d332918c157cc2f37b1.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}