Since 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court has raised serious doubts about the constitutionality of
many state sentencing guidelines, holding that other than a prior conviction, any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be tried before a jury
(Apprendi v. New Jersey, 2000). Based on this reasoning, in 2004 the Court struck down
sentencing guidelines in the State of Washington, holding that the Sixth Amendment gives juries
(and not judges) the power to make a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt (Blakely v.
Washington, 2004). The dissenters argued that the decision will serve only to increase judicial
discretion and lead to less uniformity in sentencing, perhaps leading to increasing racial
discrimination.
41. Some state supreme courts held that Blakely did not apply to their state sentencing
schemes until what case?
Cunningham v. California (2007).
United States v. Booker (2005).
Rita v. United States (2007).
Kimbrough v. United States (2007).
42. What two extra-legal factors that impact the imposition of a sentence above the
maximum range of sentencing guidelines appear to affect both jury and judicial decision-
making in particular?
43. Failure to submit a sentencing factor to a jury is subject to what kind of review?
harmless scrutiny review.
CASE 15.3
Executions in the South clearly show major racial differences. Racial imbalances in outcomes do
not necessarily prove discrimination. Interestingly, many studies found that the most obvious
factor—race of the defendant—was not as important as the race of the offender in combination
with the race of the victim. This is the offender-victim dyad.
44. Which offender-victim dyad has research show is most likely to result in execution?