Expanding Tremors From a 2004 Legal “Bombshell”
Stanford law prof, ROBERT WEISBERG, argues in Sunday’s LA Times that a little noticed 2004 Supreme Court ruling, Blakely v. Washington, is an important legal landmark on the level of Miranda. The decision---which established that judges may not increase criminal sentences based on conclusions that have not been decided by a jury or confessed to by the defendant, and that to do otherwise violates the Sixth Amendment---has already affected another important ruling by the Supremes (U.S. v. Booker), and is likely to be applied in an upcoming California court case to be argued in mid-October. "At stake is the California sentencing system," writes Weisberg. Well, maybe. But what is likely at stake is California's elaborate system of sentencing "enhancements," many of which don't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be implemented.