Supreme Court to interpret sentencing guidelines ruling
Submitted on February 20, 2007 - 5:49pm.
Kayla Webley
Scripps Howard Foundation Wire
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court heard two cases Tuesday about how to interpret an earlier decision that made criminal sentencing guidelines advisory.
The arguments questioned how the decision - made two years ago - should be applied. The court ruled in United States v. Booker in 2005 that mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury by giving judges, rather than juries, the job of determining the length of sentence.
To avoid invalidating the guidelines completely, the court then made the guidelines “advisory,” and directed judges to review sentences for their “reasonableness.”
One of the cases argued Tuesday, Rita v. United States, questioned the reasonableness of Victor Rita’s sentence. A retired Marine and former criminal investigator for the immigration service, Rita, 57, is in poor health due to injuries he sustained while fighting in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War.
He was convicted of obstructing justice and making false statements in a federal grand jury investigation about the sale of kits for making machine guns. At his trial, his lawyer argued for a sentence below the 33- to 41-month range recommended by the sentence guidelines because of his background. The trial judge imposed a 33-month sentence, a decision later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va.
Read more


Recent Comments