Supreme Court reviews reasonableness
On Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed one of the most contentious issues arising from the Court’s historic decision in U.S. v. Booker: whether a sentence within the guidelines is presumptively reasonable. Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for prisoners and families whose lives have been shattered by harsh mandatory sentencing laws, does not support the government’s view that a guideline sentence should be presumed reasonable.
The Court is considering this issue in two cases. In Claiborne v. U.S., No. 06-5618, a low-level crack defendant's below-guideline sentence was reversed by the appeals court as “unreasonable,” and in Rita v. U.S., No. 06-5754, a within-guideline sentence was affirmed by the appeals court for a defendant who made misstatements at trial.
FAMM opposes giving the guidelines so much weight, believing that the Supreme Court's decision in Booker has rightly told the lower courts to consider the guidelines but also consider factors in the sentencing statute to craft sentences that are “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to punish and deter crime, protect the public and rehabilitate the defendant.
FAMM submitted an amicus curiae brief in the cases prepared by Gregory Poe of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck and Untereiner, Brian Willen of Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw and Peter Goldberger.
We will continue to update our website with information on these cases.
Get more information
Read FAMM's press statement on Rita and Claiborne.
Download FAMM's analysis of the Rita and Claiborne cases.
Download FAMM's amicus brief in the cases, Gregory Poe of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck and Untereiner, Brian Willen of Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw and Peter Goldberger.
Read case profiles of people serving mandatory sentences in federal prison.
Visit www.ussc.blogspot.com to read all briefs filed in Rita and Claiborne.