Document Type
Article
Publication Date
Winter 2001
Abstract
Three things are clear from the Supreme Court's opinion in Cunningham v. California, in which the Court struck down California's sentencing law as violative of the Sixth Amendment, and from the briefs in the pending cases involving post-Booker federal sentencing, Claiborne v. United States and Rita v. United States. First, the Supreme Court has plunged Sixth Amendment sentencing law deep down the rabbit hole. Second, both the government and petitioners in Claiborne and Rita have adopted indefensible positions. Third, neither the parties nor the amici in Rita and Claiborne have offered the Court any real help in crafting a sensible rule for the resolution of these and future similar cases. This essay presents a critical analysis of the Cunningham opinion and the Claiborne-Rita briefs, followed by a few thoughts on how the Court might start to make some sense of the current muddle.
Recommended Citation
Frank O. Bowman III, "The Question Is Which Is To Be Master-That's All": Cunningham, Clairorne, Rita, And The Sixth Amendment Muddle, 19 Fed. Sent. R. 155 (2007)
Comments
Published as Frank O. Bowman III, "The Question Is Which Is To Be Master-That's All": Cunningham, Clairorne, Rita, And The Sixth Amendment Muddle, 19 Fed. Sent. R. 155 (2007). © 2007 by [the Regents of the University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association]. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by [the Regents of the University of California/on behalf of the Sponsoring Society] for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® on [JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/r/ucal)] or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com.