For years, Southern District of New York Judge Robert W. Sweet has been a vocal opponent of mandatory minimum drug sentencing.

So when the U.S. Supreme Court issued United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 in 2005, rendering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines “advisory,” Sweet and other critics of mandatory sentences appeared to have new-found freedom to depart from the guidelines and impose what they see as a fairer sentence.

This content has been archived.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 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]