Articles

Home > Articles > Criminal Sentencing Law

The United States Supreme Court tossed a California criminal case statute this week, claiming it directly violated defendants’ rights to a trial run by a jury by allowing judges too much authority to toughen sentences.

The new ruling stemmed from the case of John Cunningham, a California man convicted of sexually abusing his son, and follows a seven-year-trend in which the Supreme Court has reduced judges’ discretion in criminal sentencing.

“This court has repeatedly held that…any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority.

Under the state’s previous three-tier sentencing plan, a sexual abuse crime warrants a six, 12, or 16 year sentence depending on the severity of the case.

The rules in Cunningham’s case would dictate that a judge would give him 12 years in prison unless he/she found other aggravating factors like severe bodily harm experienced by the victim.

However, Cunningham received a 16-year sentence, which violated his right to a jury trial—a right offered by the Sixth Amendment, said Ginsburg.

Now, under the new ruling, California can give power to the jury to toughen a sentence based on additional aggravating facts in the case.

Accused of a crime? Don’t risk your legal rights. Contact us today for a FREE case evaluation with a qualified and aggressive criminal law lawyer near you. 

Home :: Contact a Criminal Lawyer :: Advertise