SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIFORNIA'S SENTENCING LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday struck down California's sentencing
law and strongly reaffirmed the court's view that judges may not
impose tough prison time based on factors that have not been
determined by a jury.

The 6 to 3 decision orders California to overhaul its method of
sentencing criminal defendants, which could mean shorter prison terms
for thousands of state prisoners. For other states and the federal
government, it was the latest in a series of rulings going back to
2000 that restrict a judge's ability to find the aggravating factors
that would allow for tougher sentences.

"This court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any
fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be
found by the jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable
doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence," Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

It was a majority that gives credence to the justices' often-made
complaint about attempts to peg them as either liberal or conservative.

The prevailing side in Cunningham v. California consisted of
Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The newest justice, Samuel A. Alito
Jr., wrote a dissent that was joined by Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony
M. Kennedy, who also filed a separate dissent.

Roberts's decision to join the majority is especially important,
according to Marquette University law professor Michael O'Hear and
others who follow criminal justice issues; his predecessor, William
H. Rehnquist, was on the other side. "Roberts's acceptance of
jury-trial rights" means a solid majority exists for the future, O'Hear said.

The court's move began with Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which a 5 to 4
majority said that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime
beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury
and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

The court expanded the finding in a 2004 ruling regarding the state
of Washington, and in 2005 the court found federal
mandatory-sentencing laws unconstitutional. The court held that to
remedy the system, the mandatory guidelines must become advisory and
appellate courts must review them for reasonableness.

Alito argued that California's law met the standards the court had
set for the federal system. "The California sentencing law that the
court strikes down today is indistinguishable in any constitutionally
significant respect" from the remedy the court offered in 2005, Alito wrote.

From the beginning, Kennedy and Breyer have opposed the court's
resistance to systems that allow judicial discretion.

The debate may seem procedural rather than substantive, but the case
that arrived at the court shows the impact.

Police officer John Cunningham was convicted in 2003 of molesting his
young son, who had come to live with him and his girlfriend. Under
California's Determinate Sentencing Law, Cunningham's crime was
punishable by six, 12 or 16 years in prison. The law said that
Cunningham should receive the middle term unless the judge found one
or more "circumstances in aggravation."

The judge found six aggravating circumstances, including violent
conduct, the boy's vulnerability and threats he made against his son.
The only thing that the judge found in Cunningham's favor was that he
had never been arrested before; he was sentenced to 16 years.

"We reserve that disposition because the four-year sentence
elevation, based solely on a judge's fact-finding, denied Cunningham
his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury," Ginsburg read from the bench.

As for a remedy, Ginsburg said, "the ball lies in California's
court." She noted that some states have responded to the court's
rulings by amending their determinate sentencing laws to involve the
jury in finding any facts that could elevate the sentence. Others
have "chosen to permit judges to genuinely exercise broad discretion
within a statutory range . . . without a mandatory middle," she said.

The court yesterday also unanimously struck down a lower court's
decision that made it harder for prisoners to bring lawsuits alleging
mistreatment. Jones v. Bock is one of many cases arising from the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 to cut down on prisoner lawsuits.