Blakely v. Washington
2004 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Blakely v. Washington?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who characterized the decision as a "Number 10 earthquake".[1]
Quick Facts Blakely v. Washington, Argued March 23, 2004 Decided June 24, 2004 ...
Blakely v. Washington | |
---|---|
Argued March 23, 2004 Decided June 24, 2004 | |
Full case name | Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr. v. Washington |
Citations | 542 U.S. 296 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2531; 159 L. Ed. 2d 403; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4573; 72 U.S.L.W. 4546; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 430 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant sentenced, Grant County Superior Court, 11-13-00; affirmed, 47 P.3d 149 (Wash. App. 2002); review denied, 62 P.3d 889 (Wash. 2003); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 965 (2003). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 125 S. Ct. 21 (2004) |
Holding | |
The State of Washington's criminal sentencing system violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, because it gave judges the ability to increase sentences based on their own determination of facts. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |
Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Breyer; Rehnquist, Kennedy (except as to Part IV-B) |
Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Breyer |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by O'Connor |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VI; Washington Sentencing Reform Act |
Close