High court strikes down sentencing law
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court made clear Monday that juries, not judges, must determine facts that justify harsher prison sentences.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down California’s Determinate Sentencing Law, the latest in a series of decisions limiting judges’ discretion in sentencing.
In California, thousands of inmates may be eligible to have their sentences reduced, in many cases by about a year.
“This court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by the jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.
The majority was one vote larger than the 5-4 rulings that have been the norm in sentencing cases. In his first major case dealing with the constitutionality of prison terms, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Ginsburg’s majority opinion.
By contrast, the other new justice, former federal prosecutor Samuel Alito, issued a strong dissent. California’s law “is indistinguishable in any constitutionally significant respect” from the federal sentencing guidelines that have been approved by the Supreme Court.
Alito’s dissent also suggested that the court may not be done tinkering with the federal sentencing scheme, if the justices apply the same line of reasoning to two federal sentencing cases they will hear next month. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy also dissented.
Several states have changed their sentencing laws to require prosecutors to prove to a jury aggravating factors that could lead to longer sentences. The court did not prescribe a way to fix the California law. “The ball lies in California’s court,” Ginsburg said.
Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas also were in the majority on an issue that confounds the typical conservative-liberal split on the court.
Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman, an expert on sentencing law, said the decision makes one point clear. “You have to give defendants the full jury trial right,” Berman said.
“It does raise the salience and importance of the way sentences are handed out and what those sentences are,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown said. “It certainly is calling attention to the issue of sentencing, and that might well move higher up on the legislative scale the priority of sentencing reform.”
The ruling Monday in Cunningham v. California could shave four years off the 16-year sentence of former Richmond, Calif., police Officer John Cunningham. He was convicted of sexually abusing his 10-year-old son after the boy moved in with Cunningham and his girlfriend.
The court’s move began with Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which a 5-to-4 majority said that “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The court expanded the finding in a 2004 ruling regarding the state of Washington, and in 2005 the court found federal mandatory-sentencing laws unconstitutional. The court held that to remedy the system, the mandatory guidelines must become advisory and appellate courts must review them for reasonableness.