Three years ago, a cry of relief went up from the defense bar when the Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker that the federal sentencing guidelines are not binding on judges. Finally, after all these years, the guidelines would be gone, and federal sentencing would hinge not on technical minutiae but on notions of justice and fairness.

Defense lawyers rejoiced at the prospect of making arguments for mitigation long disfavored by the guidelines. They could point to a defendant’s minor mental illness, charitable work, military service, age or poor upbringing.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]