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."
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Rita v. United States (en)
|
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)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
docket
| |
JoinMajority
| - Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito; Scalia, Thomas (en)
|
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| - Sentence upheld by the Fourth Circuit, 177 F. App'x 357 . (en)
|
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Rita v. United States, (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States (en)
|
Holding
| - Federal appellate courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Rita v. United States (en)
|
majority
| |
other source
| |
has 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)
|
Concurrence
| |
cornell
| |
JoinConcurrence
| - Thomas (en)
- Ginsburg (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |