Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Politics

High court rejects Calif. sentencing law

By WASHINGTON POST
Published January 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's sentencing law Monday and strongly reaffirmed the court's view that judges may not impose tough prison time based on factors that have not been determined by a jury.

The 6-3 decision orders California to overhaul its method of sentencing criminal defendants, which could mean shorter prison terms for thousands of state prisoners. For other states and the federal government, it was the latest in a series of rulings going back to 2000 that restrict a judge's ability to find the aggravating factors that would allow for tougher sentences.

"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 majority - Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The newest justice, Samuel Alito, wrote a dissent that was joined by Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, who also filed a separate dissent.

Roberts' decision to join the majority is especially important, Marquette University law professor Michael O'Hear and others who follow criminal justice issues said; his predecessor, William Rehnquist, was on the other side.

"Roberts' acceptance of jury-trial rights" means a solid majority exists for the future, O'Hear said.

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.

[Last modified January 23, 2007, 00:58:28]