This essay surveys the sentencing issues left open by Rita v. United States and considers how the presumption of reasonableness is likely to operate in practice and how rebutable it is, the roles of safe harbors and individual judges' policy disagreements, and the importance of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg as the swing Justices in this area. This line of cases has drifted far from its roots in a Sixth Amendment concern for juries. Though the resulting sentencing policies may be substantively desirable, the Court cannot articulate how they are rooted in the Sixth Amendment's concern for juries.
Criminal sentences, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, maximum sentences, juries, Sentencing Reform Act, Apprendi, Blakely, Booker, Sixth Amendment
Federal Sentencing Reporter
Bibas, Stephanos, "Rita v. United States Leaves More Open Than it Answers" (2007). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law. 251.
Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, Judges Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons
20 Federal Sentencing Reporter 28 (October 2007)