[quote="reciprocity"]I don't see any dicta in Booker to indicate that a disregard for possible mitigating factors is unreasonable. As I read the decision, it merely says that any fact that increases the defendant's punishment above the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the existence of the Grand Jury investigation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the cross-reference was proper under the Booker standard as written.
[quote]
I think we may be talking in different directions. Sorry. I should have been clearer. I am not challenging the reasonable doubt requirement. I am referring to the second half of Booker (and FanFan), which requires that a sentence be reasonable, and reasonableness is determined by proper consideration of the 3553 factors (including mitigating factors). I lived and breathed Booker (UGHHH!) in 2005-06 (FUN! Booker was published at the end of Jan. 2005. resulting in a year of complete chaos), when I was clerking for the Circuit Court of Appeals. People challenge sentences under Booker all the time for the trial court's failure to properly consider mitigating factors, arguing that the result in an unreasonable sentence. Granted, it is rarely a winning argument, but most of the time, the lower court has amply considered all the 3553 factors.
[quote]
I think we may be talking in different directions. Sorry. I should have been clearer. I am not challenging the reasonable doubt requirement. I am referring to the second half of Booker (and FanFan), which requires that a sentence be reasonable, and reasonableness is determined by proper consideration of the 3553 factors (including mitigating factors). I lived and breathed Booker (UGHHH!) in 2005-06 (FUN! Booker was published at the end of Jan. 2005. resulting in a year of complete chaos), when I was clerking for the Circuit Court of Appeals. People challenge sentences under Booker all the time for the trial court's failure to properly consider mitigating factors, arguing that the result in an unreasonable sentence. Granted, it is rarely a winning argument, but most of the time, the lower court has amply considered all the 3553 factors.
Comment