Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), 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."

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), 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." (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 12092139 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 724047836 (xsd:integer)
dbp:arguedate
  • --02-20
dbp:argueyear
  • 2007 (xsd:integer)
dbp:concurrence
  • Scalia
  • Stevens
dbp:decidedate
  • --06-21
dbp:decideyear
  • 2007 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Souter
dbp:docket
  • 6 (xsd:integer)
dbp:holding
  • Federal appellate courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
dbp:joinconcurrence
  • Thomas
  • Ginsburg
dbp:joinmajority
  • Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito; Scalia, Thomas
dbp:litigants
  • Rita v. United States
dbp:majority
  • Breyer
dbp:prior
  • Sentence upheld by the Fourth Circuit, 177 F. App'x 357 .
dbp:scotus
  • 2006 (xsd:integer)
dbp:uspage
  • 338 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 551 (xsd:integer)
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), 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." (en)
rdfs:label
  • Rita v. United States (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of