Skip to main content

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

 

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

Submit for publication
0

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.
Subscribe to right to jury trial