civil procedure
wex
right to jury trial
MONEY LAUNDERING, FEDERAL MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTE, SENTENCING, CRIMINAL FINANCE, DRUG TRAFFICKING, PATRIOT ACT
Issues
After the jury has convicted a criminal defendant, should judges be able to increase or decrease the defendant’s sentence on the basis of facts not determined by the jury
Court below
A California state court convicted John Cunningham of sexual abuse of his son, and sentenced Cunningham to the maximum possible term under California’s Determinate Sentencing Law. Cunningham asserts that the judicial discretion exercised in his sentencing violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to trial by jury. California contends that its sentencing law comports with the requirements for sentencing statutes laid out by the Supreme Court in recent years. A decision for either side has the potential to change the amount of discretion that judges exercise when sentencing defendants.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law, by permitting judges to impose enhanced sentences based on their determination of facts not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant, violates the 6th and 14th amendments.
In 2001, a California jury convicted John Cunningham, a former police officer, of continuous sexual abuse of his minor son. People v. Cunningham, 2005 WL 880983 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2005).
Additional Resources
- Vikram David Amar, An Important Sentencing Ruling from the California Supreme Court: Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Sentencing Upheaval, California's System is Held to Be Valid, FindLaw Writ, June 24, 2005
- Cal. Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Lockyer Praises State Supreme Court Decision Upholding California Sentencing Law, June 20, 2005.
- United States Department of Justice, US v. Booker Fact Sheet (2006).
- Bob Egelko, High Court to Assess Sentencing in State, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 27, 2006.
- First District Appellate Project, The ABC's of Preserving Apprendi-Blakely-Cunningham Claims Following the Cunningham Cert. Grant (2006).
- Edward Lazarus, The Crucial Criminal Cases that Will Start the New Supreme Court Term: Testing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ Constitutionality, FindLaw Writ, Sept. 2, 2004.
- Michael O’Hear, Cunningham: The Supreme Court's Next Sentencing Blockbuster?, Sentencing Law and Policy, May 5, 2006.
Submit for publication
0
plea bargain
Overview
Many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trials, but with plea bargains. Plea bargains are agreements between defendants and prosecutors in which defendants agree to plead guilty to some or all of the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors.
wex
right to counsel
Overview
The right to counsel refers to the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defense, even if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions. However, the right to counsel was not applied to state prosecutions for [wex:felony] offenses until 1963 in Gideon v.