Difference between revisions of "Washington v. Recuenco"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(cat) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In ''Recuenco v. Washington'', 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that [[harmless-error]] analysis applied to jury enhancements where a sentence increased based on a judge's own factual findings rather than a jury verdict. This 6-3 decision, written by Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] and joined by [[Antonin Scalia]], limited the scope of ''[[Blakely v. Washington]]'', 542 U.S. 296 (2004), with respect to sentence enhancements. This decision reinstated a sentence enhancement vacated by the Supreme Court of [[Washington]]. | In ''Recuenco v. Washington'', 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that [[harmless-error]] analysis applied to jury enhancements where a sentence increased based on a judge's own factual findings rather than a jury verdict. This 6-3 decision, written by Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] and joined by [[Antonin Scalia]], limited the scope of ''[[Blakely v. Washington]]'', 542 U.S. 296 (2004), with respect to sentence enhancements. This decision reinstated a sentence enhancement vacated by the Supreme Court of [[Washington]]. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Criminal Law]] | ||
Revision as of 17:25, January 16, 2008
In Recuenco v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), the United States Supreme Court held that harmless-error analysis applied to jury enhancements where a sentence increased based on a judge's own factual findings rather than a jury verdict. This 6-3 decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Antonin Scalia, limited the scope of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), with respect to sentence enhancements. This decision reinstated a sentence enhancement vacated by the Supreme Court of Washington.