Supreme Court decisions make sentencing guidelines advisory
In June, in Blakely v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Washington state's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, ruling that the state judges may not use facts to increase a sentence beyond that authorized by the jury verdict or the defendant's plea to the offense. Thirteen states were likely to be affected in some way by the ruling. Moreover, the ruling called into question the federal sentencing guidelines system, under which all federal crimes have been sentenced since 1987. 55
In September the court heard two cases to clarify how Blakely affects the federal system. United States v. Booker involved a decision by a panel of 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) that invalidated the sentence of a Wisconsin defendant because the judge, not the jury, decided the amount of drugs involved in the case and determined that the defendant obstructed justice. The second case, United States v. Fanfan, concerned a sentence given four days after the Blakely ruling to a defendant found guilty in Maine of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Facts of the case, which were not considered by the defendant's jury, would result in a sentence of 15 to 16 years under the guidelines. Because of the Blakely decision, however, the judge sentenced him to a six-year prison sentence. 56
In its January 2005 decisions on the two cases, the Supreme Court found federal sentencing guidelines in part unconstitutional because they direct judges to increase sentences based on facts not found by a jury. It struck down part of the 1987 Sentencing Reform Act that made guidelines mandatory but directed judges to consult the guidelines as a guide before imposing a sentence. Thus judges may increase or decrease a guideline sentence as long as the sentence is reasonable. Mandatory minimum laws, however, are NOT affected by this ruling.