Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Crime and Consequences

Criminal Law

: Crime and Consequences

Notes on the Oregon v. Ice Argument

By Kent Scheidegger et al.

In Oregon v. Ice, the Supreme Court heard argument on whether the Apprendi line of cases, requiring jury trial for facts that increase the maximum sentence that may be imposed, should be extended to cover consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences for multiple crimes. CJLF's amicus brief in the case is here. Our pre-argument press release is here. Mary Williams argued for the State of Oregon. Justice Scalia indicates that Oregon's statute is unique, requiring factual findings before the defendant is eligible for consecutive sentencing, and in that situation Apprendi should apply. Williams thinks there may be as many as 13 states with such laws. She notes prior Apprendi cases were all on one sentence for one conviction. Justice Scalia notes the important impact of consecutive v...continue to full post

Full post as published by Crime and Consequences on October 14, 2008 (boomark / email).