Since 2000, the U

question 80

Multiple Choice

Since 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court has raised serious doubts about the constitutionality of many state sentencing guidelines, holding that other than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be tried before a jury (Apprendi v. New Jersey, 2000) . Based on this reasoning, in 2004 the Court struck down sentencing guidelines in the State of Washington, holding that the Sixth Amendment gives juries (and not judges) the power to make a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt (Blakely v. Washington, 2004) . The dissenters argued that the decision will serve only to increase judicial discretion and lead to less uniformity in sentencing, perhaps leading to increasing racial discrimination.
-Some state supreme courts held that Blakely did not apply to their state sentencing schemes until what case?

• A)Cunningham v.California (2007).
• B)United States v.Booker (2005).
• C)Rita v.United States (2007).
• D)Kimbrough v.United States (2007).

---

Definitions:

Benefits

Advantages or profits gained from something, such as a job, policy, or activity.

Holistic Critical Thinking

An approach to critical thinking that considers the whole context, including varied perspectives and interrelated factors.

Scoring Rubric

A guide used for assessing the quality of tasks or performances, detailing the criteria and standards for different levels of achievement.

Strong

Having great physical power, strength, or force; also used metaphorically to describe resilience or potency in non-physical contexts.