Discuss the case of United States v. Booker (2005). What did this case do to the sentencing guidelines as they were first implemented?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The circumstances of the case are that Freddie Booker was arrested in 2003 in possession of 92.5 g of crack cocaine. He also admitted to police that he had sold an additional 566 g. A jury found Booker guilty of possession with intent to sell at least 50 g, for which the possible penalty ranged from 10 years to life. At sentencing, the judge used additional information (the additional 566 g and the fact the Booker had obstructed justice) to sentence Booker to 30 years. Booker’s sentence would have been 21 years and 10 months based on the facts presented to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Booker appealed his sentence, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated by the judge “finding facts” when this is the proper role of the jury. An earlier federal appeals court had ruled that the facts of prior convictions are the only facts judges can “find” as justification for increasing sentencing. In other words, anything other than prior record that is used to increase a criminal penalty beyond what the guidelines call for must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court agreed with Booker that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment and sent the case back to District Court with instructions either to sentence Booker within the sentencing range supported by the jury’s findings or to hold a sentencing hearing before a jury (Bissonnette, 2006). The remedial portion of the Court’s opinion (what can be done to prevent this happening again?) is much more controversial. The Court held that the guidelines were to be advisory only, and therefore no longer binding on judges. However, the Court did require them to “consult” the guidelines and take them into consideration, but there is no way of assuring that judges comply. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General at the time, called the decision “a retreat from justice,” and Congressman Tom Feeney decried, “The extraordinary power to sentence” now afforded federal judges who are accountable to no one, said that the decision “flies in the face of the clear will of Congress” (Bissonnette, 2006, p. 1499). In fact, Booker was resentenced by the same judge to the same 30-year sentence that he originally received. Because the sentencing guidelines had then become merely advisory, the judge did not have to further justify his sentence since it was within the range of the statutorily defined penalty. The Court’s ruling on guidelines only applies to the federal system at present.