United States v. Booker
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Booker an entity of type: Thing
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Booker
rdf:langString
United States v. Freddie J. Booker; United States v. Ducan Fanfan
xsd:integer
2029145
xsd:integer
1095904764
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-24
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:integer
4
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
rdf:langString
Souter; Scalia
rdf:langString
Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amend. VI; 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 3553, 3742
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
220
xsd:integer
543
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-04
xsd:integer
2004
rdf:langString
United States v. Booker,
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-12
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
United States v. Freddie J. Booker; United States v. Ducan Fanfan
rdf:langString
United States v. Booker
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In its majority decision, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the range. The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and it directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness," which the Court left undefined. The ruling was the direct consequence of the Court's ruling six months earlier in Blakely v. Washington, in which the Court had imposed the same requirement on a guidelines sentencing scheme employed in Washington state. Blakely arose out of Apprendi v. New Jersey in which the Court held that except for a prior conviction, any fact that increases the defendant's punishment above the statutory maximum punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
35529