With his bow tie, unfailingly polite questions and calm demeanor, Justice John Paul Stevens appears to be an unlikely revolutionary. But in the past decade, he led an effort that overhauled key elements of the criminal justice system.
It began in 2000 with his majority opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, holding that due process required that any fact increasing the penalty for a crime above the prescribed statutory maximum must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And it culminated with U.S. v. Booker in 2005 in which Stevens dismantled the mandatory character of federal sentencing guidelines. In the process, he put together an unusual coalition, finding key support from justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This content has been archived.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
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]
