When the Supreme Court ruled 19 months ago that jurors, rather than judges, must decide facts that increase criminal sentences, dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor predicted the impact could be “colossal.”
At first, in spite of the best efforts of the criminal defense bar, lower court judges proved her wrong, interpreting Apprendi v. New Jersey narrowly and cautiously.
This content has been archived.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]
