Replies

First off, I'm pleased to see the Court again this week strike a blow against the death penalty, although I'm not sure that I think this was the proper vehicle in which to do so. I guess I shouldn't complain.

What strikes me as more interesting about today, however, is the Court's ruling in Harris v. US, in which the Courts approved the practice of allowing judges to lengthen prison sentences if a gun was used in the commission of a crime, even if the defendant hasn't been convicted of any charge specifically involving the weapon (my emphasis).

Do these two opinions seem at all at odds with one another, or is it just me. What am I missing? The ruling in Harris was 5-4, and a bizarre mix of folks, including Scalia and the Chief in the majority, with Thomas, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter in the dissenters. Seems exactly backwards of what one might expect!

Thoughts?

The Supreme Court did not strike a blow against the death penalty. This decision does not restrict capital punishment; it merely states that the jury must find the aggravating factors exist that allow a judge to impose the death penalty. Of the 38 States that allow capital punishment, only 5 are affected by this decision.

I have not read the Harris opinion yet. I will gladly post my thoughts on it after reviewing it.

I have reviewed the Harris opinion. For background purposes: Harris faced a sentence anywhere from a minimum of 5/7/10(dependent upon carrying/brandishing/discharging a weapon) years in prison up to a maximum of life imprisonment if found guilty of drug trafficking. Harris was found guilty by a jury and the judge imposed a 7 year minimum sentence because he found that Harris "brandished" a gun during the drug trafficking crime. Harris argued that the jury never made a finding of "brandishing" and thus the court should have imposed a minimum sentence of 5 years.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence because: 1.the sentence that he received could have been imposed for the crime even without the judge finding the brandishing(he faced a MINIMUM of 5 years), and 2.the sentence did not exceed the maximum that he could receive from a jury conviction of the crime(MAXIMUM = life).

I agree that it is very confusing and is only partially(if at all)consistent with the Ring case. Basically, for crimes where there is a sentence range, the judge can sentence within that range as long as the sentence does not exceed the "normal" maximum allowed for that crime. If the legislature allows a sentence above the maximum for certain types of that crime(e.g., death sentence for certain 1st degree murders, add'l prison time for certain crimes when motivated by "hate"), then the jury must find that those facts exist before a judge can impose the sentence above the "normal" maximum for that crime.

Hope my explanation didn't confuse you more.