| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Rita v. United States ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Rita v. United States
''Rita v. United States'', , was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in ''United States v. Booker''. In ''Booker'', the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The ''Booker'' remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." ''Rita'' clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
==Background==
This case involves the crime of lying to a federal grand jury, although the particular false statements are not germane to the legal issue the Supreme Court resolved. Ultimately, Rita was tried and convicted of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice. In preparation for sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a presentence report, describing "offense characteristics," "offender characteristics" (including Rita's criminal history), and other information relevant to the court's sentencing determination, framed in terms of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The report recommended that, under the Guidelines, the district court should impose a sentence between 33 and 41 months in prison, and that there were no grounds for the court to impose a sentence either above or below this range.
At the sentencing hearing, Rita could frame an argument for a sentence less than 33 months in one of two ways. First, he could argue ''within the Guidelines framework'' for a "departure" by showing that "his circumstances present an atypical case that falls outside the heartland to which the United States Sentencing Commission intends each individual Guideline to apply." Second, he could argue ''outside of the Guidelines framework'' that the statutory sentencing factors set forth in (a) warranted a lower sentence, which many circuits call a "variance." Under either framework, Rita pointed to (1) the fact that he would be susceptible to retribution for being a government informant while in prison, (2) his military experience and distinguished service, and (3) his frail health, for a lower sentence. The district judge ultimately disagreed that these factors warranted leniency under either framework, and sentenced Rita to 33 months in prison.
Rita appealed to the Fourth Circuit. He argued that the 33-month sentence was unreasonable because it did not take into account his "history and characteristics" and because it was greater than necessary to effectuate the purposes of sentencing. The Fourth Circuit ruled that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and upheld Rita's sentence. Rita asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. It agreed to do so, observing that some federal courts of appeals had adopted a presumption of reasonableness while others had rejected such a presumption.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Rita v. United States」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|